Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2000-07-03CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 3, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Julie Morales called the Development Review Commission meeting of July 3, 2000, to order at approximately 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present included Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Powers, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller. Mr. Cushing was excused. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner; Dave Powell, City Attorney and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Kiersey moved for approval of the Minutes of May 15, 2000. Mr. Miller seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Powers, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Mr. Cushing was not present. There were no votes against. IV. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order None. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 00-0007, an application by Gramor Oregon, Inc. to redevelop Block 136. The request consists of the following items: • 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. The staff coordinator is Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager. Continued from the May 15, 2000, and June 5, 2000, DRC meetings. Chair Morales opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. She asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 15 Minutes of July 3, 2000 biases or conflicts of interest. All Commission members present indicated they had visited the site. Ms. Ostly and Ms. Morales reported they had read a June 29, 2000, Lake Oswego Review editorial entitled "Give Gramor Blessing to Move on Block 136." Mr. Powell advised the editorial was an ex parte contact and anyone who testified was allowed to rebut it. He then read the contents of the editorial into the record (see Exhibit 80). The editorial encouraged the Development Review Commission to approve the applicant's revised design for development of Block 136. Mr. Powell asked if any person in attendance desired to challenge any Commissioner's right to hear the application. No one presented such a challenge. He advised the Commissioners that they could open the hearing to allow general testimony or to restrict public testimony to changes in the application. The Commissioners generally agreed to restrict testimony to new items presented by the applicant at the hearing. Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (see Memorandums dated May 9, May 15 and June 28, 2000). He entered a letter from Suzan Berry regarding preservation of trees into the record as Exhibit 79. He recalled the Commissioners had identified seven issues of concern at the June 5, 2000 hearing and the applicant had agreed to continue the hearing in order to address the issues. He discussed several issues related to the commercial structure: • Second story building material. He related that the applicant had modified the application and currently planned to clad the second story in wood, or some other softer material (as required by LODS 23) rather than brick, with one exception. The exception was that a portion of the corner of Second and A Streets would remain completely brick in order to make it appear to anchor the building. • Details and roof pitch. He noted the applicant had also made changes to the roof pitch and building details that would help to smooth the transition between the first floor and roof. He said the applicant had reduced the size of the clock and had affixed the numbers and hands directly to the brick in order to soften its appearance. He worried that the new design of the clock face would make it seem to fade into the building. • Landscaping. He recalled that staff had previously recommended approval of the applicant's plan on the basis that: 1) The structure was a dense, downtown commercial building, directly on the street, with little area left for landscaping after the parking requirement was fulfilled; and 2) The applicant planned to landscape a portion of the alleyway to make it look like part of the project. Mr. Tracy then discussed several issues related to the townhouses: • Massing. He recalled previous Commission concerns regarding the massing of the townhouse buildings along 2nd and 3rd Streets and the lack of cohesive outdoor gathering space. He reported that the open space issue remained unresolved, although the applicant's revisions to elevations had provided an additional 800 square feet of open space and the applicant also held that the streets also functioned City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 15 Minutes of July 3, 2000 as open space areas. He advised that did not meet the intent of the Open Space Standards and he related that if a unit or units on the southern end of Building 2 were eliminated that could free up space for a cohesive gathering area. • Entryways. He recalled the Commissioners had opined the entryways were too uniform and their design created dark and uninviting entry areas. He noted the applicant had made modifications to the previous design that included four themes of entryways (to provide variation along the buildings) including an arched entryway, a square -topped entryway with a pedestal top, and a brick column entryway. He pointed out the applicant had added different window treatments (including bay windows); arts and crafts style details; and varied rooflines. He said the applicant was currently requesting to be allowed to downgrade the roofing material from "Grand Canyon" to "Grand Sequoia" in order to balance out the increased costs of the other changes. He advised that "Grand Canyon" roofing material was visually preferable to the lower grade of roofing. He also advised against the modified rooflines because the new lines reduced some of the originally proposed gables, emphasized the linear look of the building, and obscured some of the units. He pointed out that horizontal "mid-rooflines" above the second level windows of three units seemed to tie them together and removed individuality of units. He said the bay window elements only served to further fragment the unity of the project and did not introduce variety or break up the project's mass. He observed mixed architectural style elements had been combined on one building and he recommended that the style of details should be consistent on each building so that each of the five buildings presented its own period. He explained that because the applicant had not provided revised floor plans, staff had been unable to determine how deep the doorways were to be. Mr. Tracy summarized that the commercial project revisions would be largely beneficial and the building seemed to have an improved relationship to the street and the downtown area. The upper story had been softened and the rooflines had been enhanced. He recommended the proposed size of the clock face, but not its design. He said the design of the gables and the locations of the newly—proposed elements on the townhouse elevations should be reconsidered in order to allow unity of architectural features on each building. He pointed out that the June 28, 2000 staff memorandum had discussed different methods of addressing the open space issue. He recommended that the DRC approve the applicant's June 20, 2000, revised proposal, as shown in Exhibits 7 — 29, subject to the recommended conditions in the May 5, 2000, staff report and the May 15, 2000, staff memorandum. Mr. Tracy clarified for the Commissioners that an April 19, 2000, agreement between Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) and Gramor, Oregon Inc. provided that the townhouse portion of project would feature 38 — 41 units. Applicant City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 15 Minutes of July 3, 2000 Barry Cain, GRAMOR OREGON, INC., 19767 SW 72"d Avenue, Tualatin, OR 97223, clarified his firm had not requested the newspaper editorial. He estimated that construction drawings would take two months to complete and then construction could start within the third month. He indicated that construction could be underway by late September or early October. He said the applicant had addressed the Commissioners concerns by proposing revisions to break up the mass of the project and provide more differentiation between units. He explained that more details had been added to the pedestrian level and changes had been made to the roof. He opined that the proposed change in quality of roofing material would not be apparent from the pedestrian level. He said the applicant did not propose a reduction in the number of units, and he recalled the applicant's representatives had left the prior hearing with the understanding that they would not need to reduce the number of units in order to increase the open space. He stressed that more details had been included in the landscaping plan and the site contained many small, nice outdoor gathering areas. He distributed an aerial photograph showing the four -block area including the site and Millennium Park (Exhibit 83). He pointed out the close proximity of the park to the townhomes site. He said the applicant expected people would gather at the park, the commercial building, and other commercial developments in the area. He opined the current proposal was better than the previous proposal. He said the applicant had considered several clock designs — with, and without a face - and had decided that the currently proposed understated design best reflected Lake Oswego style. He related that the applicant had made many personal design decisions, including whether or not the clock should feature a face and where the roof peaks should be placed, and he asked the Commissioners to leave some of the smaller, subjective decisions to the applicant. Ted Argo, Argo Architects, 9370 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard, OR 97223, architect for the townhouse portion of the project, explained that although the Commissioners had indicated their desire to see more variety in the townhouse design, the applicant's research showed that rowhouse project designs consistently displayed rows of identical tall buildings. He explained that, except for one elevation, the ridgelines were still perpendicular to the street, although one unit had been reduced and featured more horizontal lines. He noted variety had been achieved by the use of both smaller and larger square columns. He said the porch designs had been varied and featured notched iron railings, some full height, some arched with stone detailing, and some featuring flat brick details across the front. He presented a model of the proposed rowhomes (Exhibit 84) and pointed out the variation of the facades and the depth of the bays (at a net depth of fully -enclosed space of 3.5 feet). He indicated the applicant could open up the sides of the porches, if the Commission desired. He said the longest townhouse building would be approximately 70 feet shorter than the townhouse project across from City Hall. He explained that 800 square feet had been added to the landscape plan after all street elevations had been relocated one foot back and after two buildings had been moved further apart. He reported that the applicant's marketing consultants had advised that neighborhood parties could be held in a cul de sac or a closed portion of the street. He clarified that the feature marked "private street" on the plan featured no curb, the concrete pavement was broken into 4" x 4" squares and it flowed into other areas in order to provide continuity for the project. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 15 Minutes of July 3, 2000 Mr. Argo observed that the townhouse development across the street from Safeway abutted a back alleyway that was paved up to the structure's back walls. He further observed that the project across the street from the site featured suburban driveways to the garages in back. He acknowledged that the applicant's proposed townhouses would be 10 feet taller and 15 feet closer to the street. He noted the Downtown Development Standards (LODS 23) referred to both "small city" and "village." He said the applicant believed their project fit the "small city" image. He clarified that the closest building to a street was 7 feet from the edge of the porch to the sidewalk and the buildings averaged 10 feet from the sidewalk, with two or three tiers of landscaping in the area in between. He confirmed for Mr. Kiersey that the applicant still planned to create rounded corners at Second, Third and Evergreen Streets, even though all four buildings had been relocated one foot further back from the sidewalk in front. He confirmed the rock sitting walls, landscaping and public space had not been removed from the plan. He also confirmed the walkway along Evergreen Street was to be 10 feet wide. He confirmed for Ms. Binkley that no provision had been made for personal gardening areas for unit owners. He clarified that the "net" depth of enclosure of each vestibule (enclosed on three sides) was 3.5 feet, and the total depth of the entryways was six feet. He clarified for Ms. Binkley that the bay windows (which were not included on the model) would protrude three feet, and the square box bays would overhang six inches. He pointed out the applicant's proposed treatment of rafter ends on the drawings. Michael Lee, Sienna Architecture, 411 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR 97201, architect for the commercial building, explained the proposed changes to that building. He said the applicant currently proposed that the upper story be clad in wood in order to lighten the upper floor of the structure and the building was to feature more craftsman type detailing. He clarified that brick would still be a two-story accent feature of the most important corner of the building. He specified that the applicant had retained the variation of windows and had added a wider trim board around them to provide a craftsman style look. He said the dormers were to be covered by natural cedar shake shingles, and a traditional gable end roof was planned. He said the applicant's idea was to achieve a look of wood sitting on a brick base with wood detailing. He explained that would make the structure appear lighter, more composed, and more complex. He confirmed for Mr. Miller that the clock numbers would be affixed to the brick and the hands and numbers were to be in a light color to contrast with the darker brick. He presented an example of the brick to be used. He confirmed for the Commissioners that a small area of gable end roofing would be visible from the alleyway, all of the mechanical equipment would be screened, and the arched metal awnings were to be produced by a metal fabricating company. Ms. Binkley and Ms. Morales agreed the awnings were an important feature of the fagade of the building. Mr. Lee also clarified the fascia trim over the clock would protrude approximately 18 inches and the lighter color brick accent detailing would protrude approximately 6 inches. He stated the brackets shown in the south elevation were currently proposed to be of wood. Chris Freshley, Landscape Architect, 1020 SW Taylor, Suite 355, Portland, OR, 97205, stated the major trees to be planted on the site would be of 3 -inch caliper and a giant sequoia tree was still proposed to be planted. Mr. Powers advised that type of tree required City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 15 Minutes of July 3, 2000 more maintenance than other types of trees. Mr. Freshley also clarified it was the applicant's intent that the proposed dogwood trees would grow together over time. Mr. Argo clarified that the applicant would install a door to a downstairs office from the front porch if a townhouse buyer desired it. Mr. Freshly clarified that landscaping of the townhouse units would include diverse and layered plantings. Mr. Powers observed that the planned vegetation would provide variety, even though the differences in plant heights would not be significant. Opponents None Neither for nor Against None. Rebuttal None. No one requested that the hearing be continued to allow submission of new evidence. Mr. Cain stated that the applicant waived their right to submit a final written argument. Ms. Morales closed the public hearing and opened deliberation. Deliberation Ms. Morales indicated she favored the applicant's current proposal for the second story building material, roof form, architectural details and brick corner detailing of the commercial building. She acknowledged they contributed to a cohesive design. She also favored the currently proposed design of the clock face. Ms. Binkley observed that although the applicant's drawing did not show the 18 -inch fascia detail over the clock, she felt it was an important detail for the structure. She said she approved of the applicant's current proposal for the rear elevation of the commercial building. She observed the clock face area included a lot of brick and she suggested the applicant ensure that the clock hands and numbers would be of a color that would contrast with the brick. Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Binkley and Mr. Powers indicated they agreed with the applicant's current landscape plan. Ms. Binkley discussed the townhouse design. She opined that the proposed front metal railings did not seem as "friendly" as the proposed rear wood railings. She observed the entry door colors were to vary from unit to unit. She said the brick still felt fairly flat and City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 15 Minutes of July 3, 2000 "unfriendly" and she would have preferred a plan for more communal space in front of the units. She indicated she agreed with elements of the applicant's current plan that helped to break up the mass of the buildings and provided individuality to each unit; however, she noted the plan did not successfully break up the continuous wall or provide more open space. She also noted the middle units featured front and rear views of the back of another block of units. She indicated she would have preferred to see variation in height and a smaller overhang of the bay windows. Ms. Morales indicated that she favored the change in roofs, the additional second story roofs and the bay windows because they helped to break up the mass of the buildings along the street. Mr. Miller observed that a unit purchaser would have the option to add another door to the unit. He also observed the revised plan provided for more planted vegetation. Mr. Miller observed Elevation AR -9 included two window styles: double hung and classic casement. Mr. Argo clarified the windows were to be as they had been illustrated in that elevation drawing. He said in cases where there was a disparate sash height - such as where there was a narrow transom and a tall lower window - the lower window would be a casement window. Ms. Binkley moved for avvroval of LU 00-0007, subject to the conditions recommended by the staff, with following additions and modifications (the final language is to include updated exhibit numbers): Conditions related to the commercial building: D. (2.)(i.) Fascia boards are to be 18 -inches wide and overhang by a minimum distance of 6 -inches. D. (2.)(ii.) Window trim is to be 12 inches wide. D. (2.)(iii.) Rafter ends are to be a minimum size of 4 x. D. (2.)(iv.) Curved awnings must be included as shown in elevation AC -2. D. (2.)(v.) Clock hands and numbers are to be a lighter color to contrast with the brick and are to be slightly larger (thicker) than shown. Conditions related to the townhouse project: D. (2.)(b.)(i.) Side openings in the entry way are to be as shown on the model (Exhibit 84). D. (2.)(b.)(ii.) Roofline over the second story porch is to be as shown on model. D. (2.)(b.)(iii.) Roofing material is to be Grand Canyon style. D. (2.)(b.)(iv.) Door colors are to vary (as proposed by the developer). D. (2.)(b.)(v.) Overhang dimension of the 45 degree bay windows must be a minimum of 6 inches and the window header trim board is to be at least 6 inches wide. D. (2.)(b.)(vi.) Optional office entry is to be off of unit entry porch. Conditions related to landscaping: City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 15 Minutes of July 3, 2000 D. (7.)(i.) Substitute another variety of evergreen tree for the proposed giant sequoia tree. Mr. Powers seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Powers, Mr. Mersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Mr. Cushing was not present. There were no votes against. Ms. Morales commended the applicant's teams for the excellent improvements they had made in the revised proposal. She recessed in the meeting at 9:00 PM and reconvened the meeting at 9:03 PM. LU 99-0054, a request by David Emami for Development Review approval to demolish a 4,500 square foot building and construct a 5,700 square foot second story addition to an existing single story structure. This request will increase the overall square footage from 18,775 square feet to a total of 20,440 square feet. Modifications to the parking and landscaping are also proposed. The site is located at 17010-17120 Pilkington, Tax Lot 1500 of Tax Map 21E 18AB. The staff coordinator is Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner. Chair Morales opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. She asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. All Commissioners present indicated they had visited the site. Chair Morales then asked if any person in attendance desired to challenge any Commissioner's right to hear the application. No one presented such a challenge. Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner presented the staff report. He explained that after the original application had been submitted in September 1999, the applicant had requested a postponement in order to address concerns identified by the staff, including missing, incorrect and unclear PUD 1-68 conditions of approval. He explained that standards in 1968, when the original PUD of five lots was approved, were different from current PD standards. He clarified the older standards allowed a commercial PUD to specify uses and size of those uses that were different from those permitted in the underlying zone. The PUD was then limited to those specific uses and sizes. He related an additional complication that the record of the original PUD approval was sparse and did not describe the allowed uses that had been authorized in 1968. He said the applicant and staff had concluded that the currently proposed changes to demolish a portion of the single story building and build additional square footage above the remainder of the building would conform to the original approval. They had also agreed that the applicant could apply to increase the list of authorized uses for Lot 38 (the site) to include uses currently permitted in the underlying Industrial Park (IP) Zone. He explained the Commission was also to review the plans for the building remodel, site plan revisions and landscape changes. He also related that the applicant had obtained the agreement of all property owners within the PUD (Exhibit 68) to allow his proposal. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 15 Minutes of July 3, 2000 Mr. Tracy recommended the expanded PUD uses and general site plan proposed by the applicant because building upward would more effectively utilize the land, reduce the building footprint, and open up pedestrian and visual access to Lot 39, a remaining vacant lot within the PUD 1-68. He clarified that if vehicular access to Lot 39 were proposed in the future, that would require another major modification of PUD 1-68. He advised the proposed increase in building size would enable the applicant to utilize Parking Standard (LODS 7) modifiers and reduce the required parking by 15%. He said that although the building could then be occupied by a variety of uses currently permitted in the IP Zone, staff did not support an increase in retail or office uses above the 15% gross site limitation specified in the current IP Standards. He related that the City was retaining its right to terminate PUD at a future time for reasons of general noncompliance with the original PUD plan and program. He recommended that uses permitted under the original PUD - but which would not be permitted in the IP Zone - be limited to what was currently authorized in the PUD. Mr. Tracy addressed parking. He related the applicant proposed 49 parking stalls and the adjoining owner, the Taylor Trust, supported the applicant as long as there were no impacts to their property. He proposed a new condition of approval E(4) to limit the uses listed in condition E(3) to those that could be accommodated per the requirements of LODS 7.020 within those parking stalls provided on Lot 38 (the site). Parking was not to be met through offsite accommodations without express written consent of offsite owners and a grant of easements per LODS 7.020. He addressed the design of the structure. He related his concern that more scoring and contrasting colors (to mimic windows) on the rear elevation was necessary to help break up the mass of the wall. He explained the wall was on the property line, so the use of real windows and openings there was limited. He noted the front elevation had been revised to provide a more defined entryway to the second story and the entrance had been projected out and included arched openings. He suggested the entry would function more effectively if the elevator faced forward, rather than to the side, and if the stairs were wrapped around the elevator core so the windows along the front elevation would provide more light into the stairway area. He also suggested that the proposed exterior balcony be internalized and repetition of first floor elements on the second floor be modified by variety of window treatments on that level. He acknowledged that the applicant was concerned about appropriate access to the elevator for heavy machinery when it was to be moved to the second floor. Mr. Tracy suggested swing out windows would resolve that concern. He recommended approval of LU 99-0054, subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. He clarified for Mr. Kiersey that the applicant was currently authorized to use 5,015 square feet of office use, whereas the current IP Standard allowed 5,800 square feet. Additional uses permitted in the zone, including vocational schools, assembly and repair and light manufacturing, could be included in the additional square footage. He opined that the most functionally compatible use for the second floor space was office use and vocational use. He clarified that the West Lake Grove Design District boundary was nearby to the north of the site at Washington Court. He also clarified the staff had three concerns: 1) Rear elevation scoring and color (which could be worked out between staff and applicant); 2) The external balcony (which staff believed should be internalized to provide people with cover from the elements); and 3) The City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 15 Minutes of July 3, 2000 location of the elevator/stair court (which had been resolved by the revised floor plan). (See staff recommendations in the July 3, 2000, memorandum/Exhibit 69.) Applicant Bill Horning, Western Planning Associates, 4621 SW Kelly, Portland, OR, testified on behalf of the applicant, David Emami. He presented exhibits showing the original 1968 PUD plan and the site plan for the current remodeling project. He related that the applicant and staff had worked together to determine the key components of the original PUD approval from sparse records. He related the PUD documents did not appear to have envisioned multiple owners within the development. He explained the Taylor Made business was located in a large industrial building on the southern portion of the site, their site was 75 — 80% built out, and it was not completely in conformance to the PUD. He referred to an DIEMCO PUD plan that he said showed property lines whose locations did not conform to other indications of where the lines should be. He pointed out agreements with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) showing the location of access to Booties Ferry Road were not totally consistent with the original PUD plan. He noted the original plan documents did not show a consistent scale, or consistent square footage of buildings. He said the documents also implied there was to be shared circulation and parking. He acknowledged that was the reason the City was considering future termination of the PUD. He pointed out that a 1997 parking modification granted for the applicant's site had increased the front parking from 9 or 10 spaces indicated on the original PUD to 29 spaces. He said parking spaces located on the east side of the building had never been approved by the DRC because of a question of the status of access there. He indicated that he understood that access there was via a cross easement between the applicant's property and the Taylor property and there was a revocable licensure agreement across the Taylor property to the south that would access Pilkington Road through the Taylor site. Mr. Horning said the current proposal was to remove a section of the existing single level building and remodel the parking lot to achieve approximately 49 spaces on the applicant's property. He said the applicant did not necessarily agree with the staff that the applicant's parking rights had not been vested in the 1968 Parking Standard. He said the staff and the applicant had researched to find what the originally approved uses (vested uses) were via testimonial letter records from relatives of people who created the original PUD. He said under different circumstances the applicant would have requested to be allowed to make the site 100% office use, subject to whatever IP uses were necessary to balance out the parking. However, the applicant had tried to cooperate with the City to work out the problems with the PUD, remodeling the parking lot, better organizing the buildings, and providing other portions of the PUD with better exposure and better potential future access. He discussed the applicant's concerns regarding specific recommended conditions of approval: B(5) He said the applicant could agree to a wrap-around staircase (see Exhibit 69) as long as he was able to maintain good access to the mechanics of the elevator. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 15 Minutes of July 3, 2000 B(4)(a) He stressed that the south wall would only momentarily be visible from Pilkington Road and would be obscured by many Douglas fir trees near the Taylor Made building. He clarified that applicant proposed to create faux columns using score lines in order to help break up the wall and was interested in any other suggestions by the Commission to achieve that objective. B(4)(b) He explained that typical users of the proposed space would need to maneuver equipment up to the second floor that was too large for the stairs and elevator and the applicant proposed to allow them to pull apart the exterior balcony railing to accomplish that. He also opined that it would not be an aesthetically appealing design to create an enclosed balcony wall that projected over the sidewalk below. Mr. Horning explained the ideal situation for the applicant would be one or two tenants in the upper space, so that the interior could be opened up to allow light to enter. However, if there were three tenants, it was not a good architectural solution to do anything to further darken the interior spaces. He said it would be more economical for the applicant to retrofit the railing system to accommodate light industrial equipment than to retrofit a window wall. He asked that a portion of B(4)(b) be removed to allow the balcony to remain open, as shown on the current elevations. He clarified for Mr. Kiersey that the balcony railing was to be wrought iron and was to be removable by unbolting to allow equipment to be lifted into the upper space. He said the spacing between the slats would be a dimension that would conform to the Code. Mr. Horning acknowledged for Mr. Kiersey that the elevations showed more doors than there might actually be necessary for tenants who would occupy three storefronts (using typical space of approximately 1,500 square feet each). The storefront door and window openings would need to be customized for each tenant in order to accommodate their specific needs. He clarified that the applicant's revisions had enhanced the south wall to create interest (Exhibit 65). He stressed that the building needed to be improved to provide the configuration of space the market desired. He noted the columns on the front of the building added a nice architectural component, so the building did not need many more architectural features. He explained the building was on a zero lot line that would not accommodate windows. He confirmed that the applicant could agree to all the recommended conditions, except the newly recommended condition E(4) regarding offsite parking. Mr. Tracy explained the City's intent was to limit the applicant's office use because other property owners in the PUD did not want the applicant to rely on their sites for the applicant's parking requirement. He said that whatever combination of office use and light industrial use was included on the applicant's site would have to be limited to the 49 spaces provided on the applicant's lot. That meant the applicant could not use his entire site of 20,000 square feet for office use (or vocational school use) because that would require more than 49 spaces. Mr. Tracy clarified that the PUD would authorize the rest of the parking to be provided by other sites within the PUD; however, the City desired to limit the site to relying on its own parking spaces. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 1 of 15 Minutes of July 3, 2000 Mr. Horning expressed his disappointment that the additional condition had been recommended by the staff for the first time at the hearing because the applicant had been working with the staff for over a year. He argued the applicant was entitled to use parking available in the balance of the PUD. He clarified the applicant had not relied on that or asked for that in this application, but the newly recommended condition entered the termination phase of the PUD and unfairly put the applicant at a disadvantage. He said the applicant only desired to remodel the building consistent with the current standards. Mr. Kiersey asked about the status of the possible termination of the PUD, and how it would impact the applicant and the other owners there. Mr. Tracy clarified for Mr. Kiersey that the City had not begun a termination of the PUD. He said that staff research had revealed that the PUD was out of compliance in many ways: Lot 39 was to have a 20,000 square foot building that had never been built; and the PUD was failing to function as one unit and it had never been intended that it was to be divvied up into separate ownerships. He advised there were problems with noncomplying building setbacks, uses, phasing of improvements and constructed design. He acknowledged the applicant's proposal would help to bring the PUD further closer to conformance with its requirements. He explained the City was concerned that the applicant's proposed expansion of allowed uses would create an impact or potential impact on the other sites, so the staff recommended that the site be required to comply with its own list of uses and its own set of parking spaces. He also confirmed that the City was moving toward termination of the PUD sooner, rather than later. Mr. Horning stated the applicant had not voiced an objection to that. He noted that a number of conditions would need to be addressed by both the applicant and the Taylors because the PUD linked the two properties. He suggested that condition E(4) require that the applicant not exceed his current PUD parking limitations, based on the current square footage. Mr. Tracy advised that any termination of the PUD would be heard by the Commission. Ms. Morales suggested that the parking condition be to meet the current PUD restrictions, but any future changes would mean that each site was to have its own separate parking. Mr. Tracy explained that if the applicant used 5,800 square feet for office uses and the remainder for a vocational school, the site would require approximately 57 spaces, so that eight spaces would have to be found off site. He advised that after the PUD was terminated, it was not clear how parking was to be addressed: the site would either be out of compliance or would have to obtain permanent easement agreements for the eight spaces after the PUD was segregated. Mr. Horning clarified that although the applicant had originally requested segregation, they were not requesting it at this time. He commented that he could not imagine a PUD that did not allow the owner to use the underlying zoning. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 12 of 15 Minutes of July 3, 2000 Mr. Pishvaie asked if the applicant could agree to a condition stating "The proposed uses on Lot 38 shall provide the necessary parking onsite, without reliance on off site parking". He said the City desired to ensure that any use or combination of uses to Lot 38 could be accommodated on that lot. He confirmed that the PUD allowed reliance on additional parking offsite, but that was not part of the application. He related the staff had advised the applicant that the concerns of the other owners within the PUD were to be considered as well. Mr. Horning pointed out there had been insufficient parking for the Pilkington parcel since 1969 and the PUD had relied on the other parking spaces to achieve adequate parking for that much building area. He recalled the staff argument that the PUD contained cross easements for access and parking. He explained that the applicant had remained silent on the issue because they knew the termination was coming and the issue would eventually have to be worked out along with many other issues. Mr. Pishvaie explained the project would intensify development on the site and the staff was attempting to ensure there would be adequate onsite parking. He advised that the applicant had demonstrated that in his current application and site plan. Ms Binkley asked for clarification that the application was actually intensifying development by removing part of a building and replacing it. Mr. Horning clarified the proposal would result in a net increase of 1,800 square feet. Mr. Pishvaie acknowledged the current site plan was a great improvement over the original PUD, and over the last approved site plan. He said the newly recommended condition would make certain that regardless of what happened, this application had adequate onsite parking, and the applicant had already demonstrated that. Mr. Horning explained that the applicant did not want to see the current rights his parcel enjoyed under the PUD subrogated by the conditions of approval. Proponents Ms. Joan Taylor, Taylor Made Labels, recalled the parking issue had gone unresolved for a long period of time. She explained she supported the application as long as parking was taken care of on the applicant's property. She anticipated the PUD parking issue would take more time and effort to resolve. Ms. Morales announced a 10 -minute recess at 10: 05 PM and reconvened the hearing at 10:20 PM. Mr. Tracy related staff and the applicant had discussed recommended condition E(4) during the break. He said they had concluded that parking could be reviewed when the new tenants moved in and additional space was needed. At that time the applicant would be required to demonstrate there was adequate parking for that use that could be provided for City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 13 of 15 Minutes of July 3, 2000 within the PUD. He explained staff had agreed to drop their recommendation for that condition. Mr. Powell advised that if the applicant began a mix of uses that required more parking, they would have to negotiate an agreement with the Taylors regarding the applicant's right to park on their property. He advised that, in the interim period, the City could deal with the termination of the PUD, which could help resolve many other issues. Ms. Taylor acknowledged that was the smart way to deal with the current application. Mr. Horning related that the current application addressed storm drainage in the parking area. He clarified for Ms. Binkley that a terraced area outside of the building was to serve as a casual outdoor gathering place, with a seating wall and fountain and treed courtyard. He clarified for Mr. Powers that an existing area of ivy would be removed and replanted with other vegetation. Opponents None. Neither for nor Against None. Rebuttal None. No one requested that the hearing be held open for an additional seven days in order to submit additional written evidence. The applicant waived his right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Ms. Morales closed the public hearing and opened deliberation. Deliberation Ms. Binkley and Ms. Morales opined that the applicant did not need to add more features to the scoring on the rear wall. Mr. Tracy clarified that Exhibit 69 was a staff exhibit. Mr. Horning reiterated that the applicant was flexible about the location of the elevator, as long as the design met UBC concerns and provided access to the mechanics of the elevator. Ms. Morales commented that the horizontal rails on the balcony helped to break up the elevation and added interest to the building and the applicant's explanation of how it could be moved to provide access was reasonable as well. Mr. Kiersey moved for approval of LU 99-0054, subject to the conditions in the staff, except that the second sentence of E(4)(b) was to be removed. Mr. Miller seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Powers, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 14 of 15 Minutes of July 3, 2000 Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Mr. Cushing was not present. There were no votes against. Ms. Morales announced the vote on LU 99-0054 Findings, Conclusions and Order would be held on July 17, 2000. VI. GENERAL PLANNING Public Art Committee Ms. Ostly agreed to consider representing the DRC on the Public Art Committee. Developer credit for locating public art. Ms. Ostly asked what process could be used to provide landscaping or floor area ratio allowances to developers in return for providing areas for display of public art. Mr. Pishvaie advised that such a policy change would have to be initiated by the City Council VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Morales adjourned the meeting at 10:40 PM. Respectfully submitted. Janice Bader Senior Secretary 1:\dre\minutes\07-03-OO.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 15 of 15 Minutes of July 3, 2000