Approved Minutes - 2003-08-04 (02)
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 8
Minutes of August 4, 2003
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Commission Minutes
August 4, 2003
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of August 4,
2003 to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380
“A” Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners present were Chair Tierney, Vice Chair Sheila Ostly, Nan Binkley, and
Gary Fagelman. Commissioners Krytsyna Stadnik and Andrew Hill were excused.
Commissioner Julie Morales was absent.
Staff present included Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; David Powell,
City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Ostly moved for approval of the Minutes of May 5, 2003 after inserting Mr.
Espe’s name in para graph 2, page 3. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed
with Ms. Ostly, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Fagelman and Chair Tierney voting yes. Ms.
Morales, Ms. Stadnik and Mr. Hill were not present. There were no votes against.
Ms. Ostly moved for approval of the Minutes of May 19, 2003. Ms. Binkley
seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Ostly, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Fagelman and
Chair Tierney voting yes. Ms. Morales, Ms. Stadnik and Mr. Hill were not present.
There were no votes against.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
LU 03-0033, a request by Gramor Development, Inc., for approval of a major
modification of an earlier Development Permit (LU 01-0076) in order to modify
Conditions of Approval C(3) as follows:
1. reduce the number of approved flower boxes on Buildings A, B, C and F by 33
percent from 115 to 77 flower boxes.
2. Replace 85 square feet of storefront window with brick on the south side of
Building F.
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 8
Minutes of August 4, 2003
The site is located at Tax Lot 500 of Map 21E10AA and Tax Lots 8000 and 7300 of
Tax Map 21E03DD. (The corners of State Street & A Avenue, and A Avenue & First
Street.) The staff coordinator is Paul Espe, Associate Planner. Continued from the
July 21, 2003 DRC meeting.
Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedures and
time limits. He explained that Mr. Hill was not present due to a conflict of interest
related to the application. 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 relationship with the project or the applicant (see Potential
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement). Each Commissioner present reported his or
her profession and all Commissioners present saw no current or anticipated conflict of
interest.
Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, presented the staff report [Staff
Report dated July 11, 2003; and Memoranda, “Building Design Modifications for Block
138 (LU 03-0033), dated August 4, 2003; and “Alternative Building Design,” dated
July 16, 2003.] He explained that the applicant wanted to revise the original conditions
of approval of the Block 138 project by removing some planter boxes and modifying
the south elevation of Building F. He reported that the applicant wanted to remove
some planter boxes they found hard to access and to free space for fascia sign lighting.
He reported that the staff had analyzed the impact of the changes on each building and
how they related to applicable standards for approval.
Mr. Pishvaie reported that staff had evaluated the current request according to criteria
found in the standards that related to landscaping for commercial developments,
massing and building design. He recalled that the number of planter boxes required in
the original approval had been calculated to bring the project’s 14.4% landscaping
closer to the applicable 15% landscaping requirement. He observed that the applicant
was now asking for a large (33%) reduction in planter boxes and that would impact
elevations of some buildings – particularly A and C - more severely than others. He
recalled that the applicants had originally proposed to use planter boxes to break up the
mass and scale of Building C. He reported that staff had found the proposed reduction
in boxes wa s excessive, but that they were aware of and could support design
alternatives that could be used instead of the boxes to achieve the desired detailing
anticipated by the Downtown Redevelopment Standards (see photographs in Exhibit
18). He observed that the applicant could control the size of the fascia signs. He
reported that staff could agree to the request to change the south elevation of Building F
from a storefront window to a brick wall, but they recommended denial of the request to
reduce the numbe r of planter boxes on Buildings A, B and F. Mr. Pishvaie suggested
that the developer might be able to improve access to the flower boxes by making some
in the windows of restrooms and access corridors operational.
During questioning by the Commissione rs, Mr. Pishvaie clarified that the July 16
memorandum to the City Manager, “Alternative Building Design,” recapped
discussions during a staff meeting with the City Manager and the director of the Lake
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 8
Minutes of August 4, 2003
Oswego Redevelopment Agency when the group walked the site with the approved
elevations and perspectives and looked for places where some flower boxes might be
replaced by other types of architectural elements. He clarified that the alternatives
shown in the photographs in Exhibit 18 and listed on page 11 of the staff report were
only examples of acceptable alternate designs and not specific staff recommendations.
Applicant
Barry Cain, President, Gramor Development, Inc., 19767 SW 72nd Avenue,
Tualatin, Oregon, 97060, introduced the applicant’s team:
Gar y Reddick, Sienna Construction, 441 SW 6th, Portland, Oregon, 97204,
Carol Mayer-Reed, Mayer-Reed Landscaping Architects, 319 SW Washington, Ste 820,
Portland, Oregon, 97204,
Mark Ingalls, West Coast Plants
Dean Sorenson, Vice President and Construction Manager, Gramor Development, Inc.
Matt Grady, Project Manager, Gramor Development, Inc.
Mr. Cain related that his firm had spent $3 million more than they had originally
anticipated the project would cost since the original development approval, because
they had added many new features that would make it a better project. The applicant’s
team pointed out how they proposed to modify the number and location of flower boxes
on each building. They explained that they had discovered that the plan to put flowe r
boxes everywhere did not make sense in some locations, because the boxes could not be
appropriately maintained or they interfered with signage, awnings or a balanced design.
They reported the applicant had purchased a specially designed vehicle with a lift to
service the boxes, but the vehicle could not fit into or reach some areas of flower boxes.
They showed photographs of the buildings (entered into the record as Exhibit E21) and
presented a new packet of information (entered into the record as Exhib it E22). The
Commissioners and the applicant’s team then discussed the new exhibits and the details
of the design of light fixtures over signage, the locations of awnings, the locations of
water features and the impracticality of installing operational windows to solve the box
access problem. The applicant’s team explained to the Commissioners that they
planned to have alternate sets of flower pots prepared for each box to exchange with
those in the boxes and in some locations that exchange would be challenged by the
presence of awnings. They confirmed they had a plan to irrigate the boxes, but they still
had to address some drainage issues. They held the applicant was not jeopardizing the
design by removing some boxes. They explained they wanted the project to look good
at completion of construction and they did not want to wait for planted vines to grow up
the walls. They confirmed that there would be a variety of plants and colors and they
would be species that could survive a reasonable amount of time in the boxes.
Mr. Cain held that the project met the Code in every way and the applicant’s changes
only made the project better. He asked for outright approval of the request. He then
presented a request for a reduction of the number of pools in the courtyard between
Buildings D and E. Chair Tierney observed the presentation was dated August 4, 2003,
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 8
Minutes of August 4, 2003
and showed more project modifications than were in the current application. Mr. Cain
suggested that the request could be decided in a ministerial dec ision by staff so
completion of the project would not be delayed and it could be finished by Christmas.
He reported that the current request process had delayed the project by two weeks.
Ms. Binkley suggested staff should review the new request and the y should determine if
it should be brought before the DRC. Mr. Pishvaie advised that a request for a revised
courtyard design had not been announced in the public notice of the hearing. He
explained that staff needed time to evaluate the request and determine whether it was in
substantial compliance with the current application. Mr. Cain explained that Exhibit 22
was a response to the staff request to add more features to replace the removed flower
boxes, even that was not necessary because the applica nt had never attempted to take
features away from the project in order to reduce their investment in the project.
Chair Tierney instructed the applicant not to continue to discuss the details of the new
request, because there was a possibility that a new hearing would be required to
consider it. He asked the project landscape architect to discuss the impact of removing
planter boxes from the project. Ms. Mayer-Reed concluded there would be none due to
the variety provided by the roof shapes, paving details, water features and other
plantings. She also explained it was important not to obscure identification of retail
shops in the project. She said the remaining plants would be healthy and well
maintained year round. Chair Tierney recalled the applicant had once explained that the
planter boxes would help define the upper stories of buildings. Mr. Cain held that the
remaining boxes would accomplish that. He stressed that the applicant had never
counted the planter boxes as part of the landscape requirement and removal of some
boxes would not affect the 14.4% landscaping. Mr. Reddick observed that articulation
of the facades helped to define the upper stories. Ms. Binkley asked the applicant to
specifically describe where vines and other plant materia ls would be located and take
the place of removed boxes and how high the climbing plants would grow. The
applicant took time to organize that presentation while the DRC continued to take
testimony.
Proponents
Robert Galante, Redevelopment Director, La ke Oswego Redevelopment Agency
(LORA), explained that although he had been a co-applicant at the original hearing,
title to the property had subsequently changed and he was now representing LORA, the
adjoining property owner. He compared photographs of the front of the commercial
building on Block 136 (Exhibit E23) and the front of Building A of Block 138 (Exhibit
E24). He pointed out that both were two -story buildings, but the Block 136 building
was much taller than Building A, it featured a “hat-like” roof design that the City did
not want to see on Block 138, it had been approved without window boxes, and it
featured an unbroken 120-foot frontage. He pointed out that Building A featured six
plane changes in 120 feet of frontage and there was substantia lly less room for signage
on Building A with the boxes than on the Block 136 building. He explained that
lighting should be installed below the sign. He advised that the proposed planter boxes
on Block 138 were much larger and heavier than those on European buildings. He
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 8
Minutes of August 4, 2003
suggested that the gables on Building A, which were slightly larger than the approved
plan, could be reduced.
Mr. Galante advised that the proposed buildings were in compliance with relevant
development standards. He explained that Building A, which featured a different
design than the other structures, was in compliance, because the standards allowed an
exception for an alternative design that was exceptional in the quality of detailing,
appearance and materials; or created a positive unique relationship to other structures.
He said that was the right thing to do to avoid successive buildings in the same style
and it would help achieve the variety and character that was desirable for Downtown.
He said it had been a mistake to plan window boxes on every building on the site except
the restaurant Building F. He observed that if the buildings had been constructed by
different people over time not every building would have window boxes on it. He said
if he had recognized that earlier in the process he would have presented some buildings,
including C, without window boxes. He explained a mistake in the standards allowed
an option for the applicant to demonstrate that the alternate design accomplished the
purposes of the Urban Design Pla n in a manner that was equal or superior to a project
designed pursuant to the standard. But he clarified that the Urban Design Plan did not
include a purpose statement – only a vision statement that did not talk about buildings.
He explained that part of his job was to create a positive business environment in the
community and to protect the public’s investment in Block 138 and he believed they
were well protected by the design. He pointed out that the record (Exhibit E19)
contained a photograph of a p iece of equipment parked on a sidewalk that featured a lift
to access elevated planter boxes. He advised that the size of vehicle shown would not
fit on the sidewalk after street trees, street lights, planter strips, railings and concrete
benches were ins talled, and a smaller base vehicle would not reach the high boxes.
Applicant
Ms. Mayer-Reed then described the types and locations of climbing plants to be used in
Block 138. She anticipated that some fast growing plants, including Hydrangeas, would
grow to cover the side of a building within three years, but some would take longer.
Tierney then invited testimony about the leave outs, but there was none.
Opponents
None.
Neither for nor against
None.
No one requested that the record be held open for submission of additional written
testimony or evidence. The applicant waived their right to request additional time in
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 8
Minutes of August 4, 2003
which to submit a final written argument. Chair Tierney closed the public hearing and
opened deliberations.
Deliberations
Mr. Fagelman recalled that in discussions prior to the original project approval the
Commissioners had agreed to the addition of flower boxes to make up for a lack of
architectural detail on the buildings. He recalled that the project under construction
looked very stark along State Street and he said he was reluctant to remove any
landscaping along that street for that reason. The Commissioners considered the east
elevation of Building B and the east elevation of Building C from the perspective of
drivers alo ng State Street. Ms. Ostly stressed that the planter boxes needed to be well
maintained. She recalled testimony that the boxes were very heavy and required the
right kind of equipment to reach them. Mr. Fagelman related that because he had built a
struc ture with similar features he knew the boxes could be serviced. Ms. Binkley
suggested that growing climbing plants over the wall could mitigate removal of flower
boxes on the south elevation of Building C. She observed there was a lot a plant
material on the north facing elevation of Building C.
Ms. Binkley, Mr. Fagelman agreed that they were not concerned about removal of
boxes along the interior courtyard spaces, because they would not be as visible as the
ones along State Street. The Commissioners recalled that Ms. Mayer-Reed had agreed
there could be climbing Hydrangea plants on the south side of Building C if flower
boxes were removed. Mr. Fagelman and Ms. Binkley discussed how long that type of
plant would take to grow up the building. Several commissioners anticipated that
individual retail shop owners would enliven their storefronts with interesting features.
Chair Tierney commented that the landscaping requirement had been satisfied without
including the planter boxes in the calculation, and the architect and landscape architect
had demonstrated their ability through other work in the area. He indicated he could
support the applicant’s request. Ms. Ostly indicated that she could support the request
and could agree to Ms. Binkley’s suggested condition to require climbing plants on the
south facade of Building C. Mr. Fagelman suggested the condition specify Hydrangea
plants. When Chair Tierney asked if the Commissioners would have approved the
original application without the flower boxes, Mr. Fagelman said he thought it would
have been approved after exterior design changes. He anticipated that the building
would look better with flower boxes, even if they were a little difficult to maintain, and
he said he was concerned about what the project would look like in future years.
Mr. Fagelman said he could support the request to brick in a window of the storefront
on Building F, but he wanted to see more landscaping around the building. He agreed
that the design of the building on Block 136 could have been more attractive. He
stressed Block 138 was a focal point of the community and he said he could agree to
allow the staff to work with the applicant to include more landscaping to mitigate for
the removal of flower boxes. Ms. Ostly reca lled that the proposed width of sidewalks in
development applications was often an important issue for the DRC and she also
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 8
Minutes of August 4, 2003
recalled events in the City that would generate a lot of pedestrians who would need
sufficient sidewalk space to maneuver. She and Ms. Binkley agreed that the State Street
elevation had sufficient plant material and removal of a few planter boxes would not
adversely impact the façade. Ms. Binkley suggested a condition that would require
climbing vines on the south elevation of Building C. When Mr. Fagelman asked if they
should be evergreen plants, Ms. Binkley indicated that a mixture of plants would be
nice, and Ms. Ostly indicated she had no preference, so Chair Tierney suggested the
Commissioners allow staff to determine what plant s were to be used there.
Mr. Pishvaie confirmed that the stone wall at the steps was along the railroad right of
way and he recalled the Commissioners had previously discussed putting hanging
baskets on that wall. He advised them to leave staff recomme ndations A, B, and C on
page 17 of the staff report in the record if they modified recommended Conditions D
(re-lettered A) and E (re-lettered B) in order to approve the application.
Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 03-0033 subject to the following conditions:
A. Prior to the approval of any further inspections of Buildings A, B, C and F the
applicant/owner shall:
1. Continue to comply with all conditions of approval of LU 01 -0076,
except as modified by Condition A(2) below.
2. Submit revised building elevations for Buildings A, B, C and F in
substantial compliance with Exhibits E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8, except:
i. Climbing vines are required on the south side of Building C.
B. The planter boxes on all buildings shall contain plant materials.
1. Submit a revised landscape maintenance plan that includes the proper
maintenance of the seasonal vegetation in all planter boxes.
Ms. Binkley seconded the motion.
Chair Tierney then invited the applicant to comment on constitutional or other issues
related to the proposed changes. Mr. Cain explained his concern that the language
“prior to approval of any further inspections” would mean that daily inspections of the
project would be discontinued and the project would be delayed until the applicant had
submitted new building elevations. He said the language was not necessary, because
the applicant intended to carry out all conditions of approval. Mr. Pishvaie observed
that most of the boxes were to be installed on upper floors and the daily inspections had
been on the firs t floor. He advised that the review process required another
Commission vote to finalize the approval, plus 15 days for any appeal, and the applicant
had two weeks after approval to submit revised plans. He suggested the condition be
reworded to say “Wit hin two weeks of the order approving LU 03-0033, the
applicant/owner shall…”so that inspections could continue under the original conditions
of approval, while staff was aware that the revisions were in final process.
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 8
Minutes of August 4, 2003
Mr. Pishvaie clarified for Mr. Cain t hat Condition B (previously numbered Condition E)
applied to planter boxes and not decorative ironwork. Chair Tierney explained that this
condition would require the applicant to install plants in the boxes and submit a plan to
maintain them.
The motio n passed with Ms. Ostly, Ms. Binkley and Chair Tierney voting yes. Mr.
Fagelman voted against. Ms. Morales, Ms. Stadnik and Mr. Hill were not present.
Chair Tierney announced the vote on the findings, conclusions and order was to be held
on August 18, 2003. He clarified that the applicant would have two weeks after final
approval to submit modified drawings.
V. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS
None.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Janice Bader
Senior Secretary
L\drc \minutes \08-04-03_draft.doc