Approved Minutes - 1977-03-09 • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING March 9, 1977
Chairman Kirk Nieland called the March 9, 1977 meeting of the Lake Oswego Design
Review Board to order. Board members,in attendance were: Glenn Chilcote (late
arrival), Hugh Mitchell, Ken Mueller, Gary Rittenhouse and Bob Stark. Staff members
present ware: Alex Arseniev, Assistant City Engineer; Ralph Tehran, Planner II
minutes were kept by Nancy Bryan.
The minutes of the January 19 and February 23 meetings were approved as presented.
Chairmen Kirk Nieland explained the procedure of the Design Review Board meetings
for those who were unfamiliar with them.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
DR 5-77 (R. J. Reierson) - A request by R. J. Reierson for a preliminary design
review to remodel an existing building for use as a real estate office on property
fronting on State Street between Leonard Street and View Court (tax lot 7100 of
tax map 2 lE 10AD).
Ralph Tehran presented the staff report and exhibits and recommended approval with
consideration being given to the parking area.
Alex Arseniev stated the Public Works Department felt there were too many parking
ipspaces for the proposed type of business, end wanted to sae the number of spaces
reduced.
David Vonada, representative for W.D. Lloyd, Architect, presented a letters Exhibit
"G", authorizing him to act in behalf of the applicant. David Vonada stated his client
felt a reduction to 10-12 parking spaces would not suit the needs of a growing real
estate office, and felt they would need 30 or so parking spaces. The landscaping
at the entryways to the parking lot would reduce the, visual impact of the large
parking area.
There was considerable discussion regarding the number and location of parking spaces
to be left.
A sign proposal and rendered elevation site plan was entered as Exhibit 'tH". David
Vonada discussed the proposed sign. He explained the sign woult1 be double-sided
plexiglass with internal lighting. There was no night landscape, lighting proposed
at this time.
There being no one speaking in opposition, the public hearing was closed.
The proposed sign Was discussed at length. Bob Stark asked if the applicant Would
consider a wood sign. Hugh Mitchell inquired and was told the body of the proposed
sign would be a non-transparent surface, with the cutrthrough letters illuminated.
The landscaping plan Was discussed. It was decided that with the proposed changes
end the existing landscaping, the total plan would be satisfactory. Kirk Nieland
inquired about irrigation, and was told there were only water bibs at several
locations.
Design Review Board Meeting -2- march 9, 1977
Aft Hugh Mitchell suggested the elimination of two parking spaces in front and two on
INF the side. He also suggested the use of some ground lighting to compliment the
building in the evenings.
Kirk Nieland suggested the change in placement of the sign if it appears that the
sign placement conflicts with the existing landscaping. David Vonada said this
was possible.
Hugh Mitchell asked about the round windows shown in the plan. David Vonada stated
the windows were on either side of the vestibule, and they would be bubble windows,
strictly an architectural feature to add interest to the building. A brief discussion
by the Board members followed over the proposed bubble windows. The feeling was that
some other type of window should be used,
Bob Stark moved to accept the proposed preliminary design with consideration given
by the applicant to: a) the sign, b) the round window, and c) tho elimination of
parking spaces on the west and north entrances of State and Leonard.
Gary Rittenhouse seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
VAR 4-77 (Robert D. Morrison) A request by Robert D. Morrison for variance to
allow a reduction in front yard setback from 20 feet'to 6' feet to allow the construc-
tion of a single-family dwelling. The property is located next door to 2090 Summit
Drive (tax lot 3400 of tax map 2 lE 90C).
The staff report and exhibits were presented by Ralph Tehran, who recommended approval
of the variance with the condition that en engineered foundation for the house be
required.
Alex Arseniev presented the Public Works report. He recommended the limitation of
plantings between the street and building to those that would not exceed 30". This
would insure visibility when backing out. He also stated that there was a necessity
for some type of structural engineering analysis work to be done on the foundation of
the building.
Sob Morrison, applicant, spoke and presented another plan that would work on the site,
that would not require a variance, if the variance were denied. This plan would not
include a garage, and actually was not satisfactory for the applicant. The Morrisons
were attempting to create a house that would fit into the existing area.
There was a discussion on the location of the lot and the topography of the site.
There being no one speaking in opposition, the public hearing was closed.
Gary Rittenhouse stated he would like to see an engineered, foundation for the project
due to the tendency of rock fall because of fractured rock in the area. Kirk Nieland
also mentioned he would like to have a foundation inspection by a professional. It
was brought out that an engineered foundation had been required on previous projects
in this same area; therefore, an engineered foundation would be required on this project.
11, Hugh Mitchell moved for approval of the variance as requested, and Bob Stark seconded
the motion. It passed unanimously.
` Design Review Board Meeting -3- March 9, 1977.
Kirk Nieland suggested that the landsca in9r as it affects thevisibility
bi1zt
y when backing
L lip out of the driveway, be kept low.
DR 7-77 (Bruce Bruinsma) - A request by Bruce Bruinsma for preliminary design review
to allow the construction of a duplex. The property is located within Boones Brook
'' Subdivision (tax" lot 309 of tax map 2 lE BBA).
Ralph Tehran presented the staff report and exhibits, and recommended approval of
, the preliminary design review.
Alex Arseniev presented the Public Works staff report. He indicated that the roof
drainage should be toward the creek area. Also the two Norway Maples at the front
F property line must appear on the final plans. Public Works had no further objections
to the plans.
Doug Denison, designer for the applicant, discussed the landscaping of the project.
He stated that the applicant had retained the five maples in the front, but would
remove some of the ivy from the trees. A small berm would be created in front of
the lot. There will be a private entrance to each unit, plus back yard fencing.
Gary Rittenhouse asked about the location of the creek in relation to the property
corners of the lot. Doug Denison indicated the creek is off the edge of the property.
The roof material and style was discussed. Mr. Denison indicated that he had tried
to keep the roof line low, and that there was no decision on the type of roofing
III be used.
Kirk Nieland suggested the use of some type of material that would help to alleviate
erosion problems that might occur on the side yard slopes of the project.
There being no one speaking in opposition, the public hearing was closed.
Ken Mueller moved for approval of the preliminary design as presented. Bob Stark
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Douglas Denison, designer, then asked the Design Review Board if it was possible to
have a final approval on this project at this time. Kirk Nieland asked if the Board
members felt comfortable giving a final approval to the project. It was decided to
discuss the various aspects of the project in more detail before granting final approval.
I
As to exterior siding, Doug Denison stated the applicant would be using resawn cedar
channel siding. The roof would be thick composition shingle. The applicant tried
to cover up the foundation with siding, he said. The basement is set in from the side
elevation one foot to create a shadow line. They have put in five scotch pine trees
in the back of the property. There seemed to be no problem with the front elevation.
Gary Rittenhouse expressed concern over the actual location of the creek. He wants
the City staff to confirm where the creek is in relation to the property corners.
Left .to the discretion of the staff, Rittenhouse would like to see an accurate site
plan provided by the applicant for approval by City staff.
Design Review Board Meeting -4- March 9, 1977
Ali Kirk Nieland explained that in the past, the Design Review Board had made conditions
4 1111. of approval that materials from construction not be allowed to drift down to the
creek.
Mal llclMinn, Lake Oswego, spoke from the audience. He is the owner of lots 1, 2, -3
& 4. He stated the Board had insisted upon shake roof material at the time approval
was given on his project. Mr. McMinn wanted to see this continued.
Kirk Nieland stated the Board was trying to create a theme on which the property
should develop. If Mr. McMinn was correct, the same restrictions would be imposed
upon the applicant in changing the request from preliminary to final design approval.
it ;`1r. Denison indicated that there would be no problem complying With that request.
Ken Mueller moved to approve the final design subject to members of the staff being
presented with a site plan and that the roof material be wood shrikes if so specified
by prior actions of the Board. Hugh Mitchell seconded the motion end it passed
unanimously.
Glenn Chilcote arrived at 8:50.
DR 6-77; JAR' 3-77; TC 23-77 (Lake Oswego School District) - A request by Lake Oswego
School District for oreliminaLy. design review to allow construction of a bus parking
lot and a maintenance building. A tree cutting permit for 28 trees will be consid-
ered as well as a rear yard variance on the maintenance building to allow the
approximate 11 foot setback requirement to be reduced to 1 foot (tax lots 12, 13,
14 and parts of 7, 8, and 9 of tax map 2 1CBBC,
hwhorecommendednenial
The staff report and exhibits werepresented by Ralph' Tehran, denial
P
of the bus parking lot, variance and tree cutting permit, suggesting that alternate
site designs be considered.
Alex Arseniev presented the Public Works report. He stated Public Works had no
objection to the reconstruction of the building if the setbacks were met, but did
state his reservations concerning the parking of so many buses in the area.
Hugh Mitchell asked what the outcome of the August 1975 hearing was. Ralph stated
there had been a motion to continue the hearing after the conditions of the Board
were met, but no further transactions had taken place. .,,
Dick Thomas, business manager for the School District, stated the reason for no further
action on the project in 1975 was due to lack of funds for landscaping. He stated
there should be a letter in the file to that effect.
Dick Thomas discussed the request by the School District. Mr. Thomas stated the main
reason for the proposed plan was for financial reasons. The School District was
trying to do the most they could with the tax dollars they had. By using the existing
slab from the destroyed building the, School District could cut costs. The maintenance
building is not for servicing of buses, but rather a maintenance building for the
school district.
410
•
•
Design Review Board Meeting -5- March 9, 1977
Milk Jack St. Clair, architect, discussed the bus parking proposal. The buses need to be
parked so the engines are easily accessible. As proposed, the buses can enter from
Quarry Road, Pull into the parking spaces and pull out onto Douglas Way. Mr.
St. Clair also took exception to the report on the removal of trees. He stated the
School District was asking to remove 28 trees, about 50% removal.
The proposed building would be pre cast with a sprinkling system installed. It would
cover the existing concrete slab, and extend further in each, direction except the
east side.
Ray Larson, superintendent of maintenance, spoke in favor of the proposal.
Bill Dolan, realtor representing property owners adjacent to the School, spoke in
opposition•
Glenn Chilcote asked the applicant if any other sites had bean investigated. Dick
Thomas stated the only other possible property was on Stafford Rood, taut that the
cost of relocating is almost prohibitive.
William Virgin, property owner adjacent to the proposal, asked questions about the
proposed building structure.
John Devins Beasley Wayp owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed structure.
propertyp p
The proposed building, would come within one foot of his property' line.
Roy Marvin, West View Road, is a contract purchaser of lots effected. He asked about
the chain link fence, and suggested some other type of fence be Used to block off the
noise, and view of the buses. He also objected to blacktopping the major portion of
the present tree covered area.
Rebuttal
The problem of bus parking was discussed by Dick Thomas. He did suggest the possibility
of eliminating the middle strip and only have one gate. The School District would
prefer to park buses on gravel.
Kirk Nieland asked if anyone knew when the conditional use was granted for the bus
parking. The answer given Was probably 1947.
Glenn Chilcote asked if minimum landscape requirements were being met with what was
proposed. Ralph Tehran explained the proposed plan did not meet minimum requirements,
but that the entire area of the school ground had to be considered as a whole and
hence the requirements were met.
Much discussion followed on the proposed structure and proposed parking lot, and various
possibilities were brought up. The problem of vandalism to school buses was brought
up by Ray Larson.
Kirk Nieland suggested moving the proposed maintenance structure to the proposed bus
parking site and the proposed bus parking to the proposed structure site. A good
portion of the trees could be left standing then. Hugh Mitchell suggested requiring
ilo a substantial screening of west property line with some typo of plantings.
Design Review Board Meeting -6- March 9, 1977
Gary Rittenhouse moved for denial of the proposed maintenance building, the proposed
111, bus parking lot and the tree cutting permit. Bob Stark seconded the motion, and it
was passed unanimously.
Kirk Nieland mentioned that the Design Review Board was required to present some
findings of fact to the Planning Commission on this item.
Ken Mueller stated the following findings of fact:
a. The maintenance building be relocated in the proposed parking area with adequate
screening relative to the bus area down the west line and the south line of
lots 10 & 11.
b. The setback be 2/3 of the height of the building as required for Conditional Uses.
c. Another option to the problem was relocation.
Dick Thomas asked what the next step would be in this process. Kirk Nieland stated
that the School District would have to come up with a site plan considering the Con-
ditional Use restrictions to make as good a neighbor as possible. Glenn Chilcote
suggested they might address themselves to the obsign of the building also when they
come back next time.
Kirk Nieland stated the Design Review Board was looking for approval of a site plan
that the Planning Commission could be comfortable in approving.
Amk A short break was taken and the meeting reconvened at 10:40.
GENERAL N R L€ € A PLANNING
Hugh Mitchell had to leave, but it was noted that a quorum was still present.
Sign Code
Chairman Nieland went over the proposed sign code and the memos attached thereto.
He explained he had met with Rollo Millette from the Real Estate Board and the Board
found the changes satisfactory. Some of the changes were made after the Clackamas
County ,board of Realtors saw the proposal.
Under 47.860 (1) , the members of the 'Design:Review Board agreed to take out the word
9
"advertising" and have the statement read, "A single- or doublesided temporary sign
not eXceeding four square feet per side of display surface area."
The question was asked who would be charged with enforcing the sign code ordinance.
It was indicated that the Building Division is responsible for this enforcement.
A question was brought up as to the length of time a real estate business could have
a "Sold" sign bn property. Kirk Nieland said he would arrive at a reasonable time
limit, and add it to the ordinance. This would do away with leaving signs on property
for a long period of time for advertising purposes.
ih Under 47.870, the question was brought up about "For Rent" signs for apartments. It
ley was noted that some apartments leave their signs up all year around, to establish a
reservation list. Again, Kirk will suggest a reasonable time for this type of sign.
DesignReview Board Meeting _ _
i m n 7
March 9 P1 h 9, 1977
A memo from Patrick Barnum was read, charging the Design Review Board with complete
review of the Sign Code Ordinance, along with any suggested changes. A possible
time limit of six months was suggested. At the next meeting, Kirk will assign parts
of the Code to different members that they may work on them.
The question of what to do about existing non-conforming signs was brought up, but
no solution was given.
Brady Appeal
The Board members discussed the letter sent to Kirk Nieland from the mayor regarding
the Brady Appeal. Questions about what problems the City Council had with this
project, and also why the Design Review Board got the project back, were asked.
It was brought up that the transcript from the last Design Review Board meeting when
the Brady duplexes were discussed did not have all the information that had gene on
in previous meetings. Therefore, the City Council only had scanty information on
which to base their decision.
The City Attorney is drawing up criteria to guide the conduct of hearings. There
will be findings of fact in areas that would be of concern in a final hearing. Then
if a transcript needs to be made, enough material will be there for the Council to
reach a decision.
Kirk Nieland discussed his conversation with Dave Brady. Dave Brady indicated he and
A FAN had been discussing various solutions' to the problem. Dave Brady felt that some
agreement could be reached between the two parties, Kirk said.
Ross Thompson, Chairman of FAN, addressed the Board about the problem. Ross mentioned
that between FAN and Dave Brady, they had come up with three or four solutions. Now
it would take some time to arrive at a final decision.
Glenn Chilcote suggested that the Design Review Board request a new hearing if at all
possible. That way, it all gets into the record and all the members currently serving
on the Board will become familiar with the, project and not have to go back and review
minutes from previous meetings. Only four of the members at this time are familiar
with the Brady decision.
Kirk Nieland stated that because of the change in membership on the Board, the Board I
is unable to provide the City Council with sufficient findings of fact. They will
probably have to start over again. It would seem logical to defer any further action
on the letter from the mayor. Now there is the possibility of a new design of the
project, so we will hold off any further action. If a redesign comes in,_the project I
will start over.
There being nothing further to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
1 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Bryan, Secretary
Design Review Board