Approved Minutes - 1992-08-03 •
d It
fl a LAKE l'¢E G O
PLANNING DE PT PILES
Cl`.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
•
iJ
�f.
fj
RTWO
CITY OF"AXE OSWEGO
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING
August 3 1992
r
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Development Review Board meeting of August 3,1.992 was called to order
by Vice-Chairman Sievert at approximately 7:30 p.m,
Yh ROLL CALL
Board members present were Mr.Bloomer,Ms.Stiven,Mr.Poster r Mr,Sievert and
Ms.Remy, Mr.Stanaway and Mr.Falconi were excused. Staff members present
included Robert Galante,Senior Planner;Barbara Samolak,Associate Planner;
Cynthia Phillips,Deputy City Attorney;and Barbara Anderson,Senior
Secretary,
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Due to a lack of quorum the approval of minutes was held over to the next regularly
scheduled meting.
IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS w none
V. PUBLIC HEARING
,P113•)2,a request by Diantha Knott St Assoc, for development review approval to
add a new facade to an existing building. The site is located at 17131 Boorres Ferry
Road(Tax Lot 3801. of Tax Map 2`1E 18BA),
Acting Chairman Sievert asked the Board members if there was any ex parte contact
or bias in regards to this application. Ms, Stiven stated that she would be removing
herself from the hearing due to a conflict of interest.
Mr, Galante'.stated that the applicant has yet co adequately illustrate proposed
replacement vvixi Sows,gutters and down spouts in a manner which complement the
elevations shown in Exhibit 12 and the colors and materials shown in Exhibit 13. If
ft) 1RE 8/3/92 Minutes
Page 1 of 4
x, r�
the applicant can provide this information, Staff would recommeid,approval with
4110 proposed conditions, "
Appiikant
Jfs Xcn ►tt,Archite,dt stated that the canopy was an existing canopy that had been
there for many years and was shown in the original;photographs, however it was
taken down because the owner felt that it was in dangerous condition, Mr. Knott
stated that the window frames will be painted to match the siding color. He noted
that' the building was not in (good shape and they were trying to make
improvements.
The applicant illustrated that the window"frame color would be the same as the
siding and that the color was Lhown on the previously submitted color and material'
board (Exhibit 13). The Board found that the color and material choices were
complementary to the structure.
The applicant stated that the owner was withdrawing the request to extend the
canopy (roof addition) towards Booties Ferry Road. He stated that the roof canopy
had been preexisting, but that the owner had recently removed it. The Board left
di Condition number 1 as written to insure the plans correctly showed the proposal
without the extended canopy,
Mr.Foster moved for d and Ms.Reilly seconded. The motion,
passed with Mr. Bloomer, Mr. Foster, Mr, Sievert and Ms. Remy voting in favor,
Ms.Stiven abstained.
n'Rl:IR�lIR•iw.MkRl A.''a rr M ..�,twbRl'.ar.4 wM 4.,tMw�!4'w s k44.Rrw w M1.M 4wM r:,e 1�Re.RM4Rl4 xRxxM xMM M4wl
DR 14.92,a request by OTAK,Inc.for approval to remodel an existing structure and
add 312 sq. ft.of storage area. The site is located at 15952 5W Quarry Road(Tax Lot
100 of Tax Map 21B 8CI3)
i kctng Chairman Sievert asked if there was any ex parte contact of bias with regard
to this application, Hearing none,he asked for the staff presentation.
Ms. Snlolak stated that the applicant was requesting a remodel of an existing c;
structure and to add 312 sq. ft.of storage space, Ms.Sinolak stated that the Planning
Commission Approved a zone change for this site on lune 8, 1992 from p-O to CC
tR13 8/3/92 Minutes
Page 2 of
is
7-1
zone. She mentioned that the applicant was proposing a veterinary„clinic which is;
specialized for birds only. Ms. Srnolak stated that this is an allowed use in the GC
zone as well as hi the deed restrictions placed on the property by the owner. Ms,
Sh lak stated, that the remodel of the existing structure is similar character to
adjacent buildings in the area using composition roof and painted wood siding. Ms,
Smolak said that in reviewing the application,staff found that the proposal met the
development standards as well as the Comprehensive Plan and therefore
recommends approval of the application.
Aida:, passed out\a picture of the
existing site. Ms. Royer stated that the house was vacant and had been for quite a
long time, She stated that the previous owner had wanted to put a daycare center in
the building and had worked with the Planning Commission,on a zone change for
that. The Planning Commission had changed the zone to a GC Zone, Ms, Royer
stated that there was a remodel done to the rear of the structure for a daycare and
will require a new remodel. Ms. Royer said that they have the required 7 parking
spaces with one being handicapped and van accessible. Ms. Royer stated that they
had tried to make the front elevation look like a residential structure and have kept
landscaping around the property. Ms.Royer pointed out that the site will Use a dry
well for drainage purposes as noted in the soils report.
ill Nab v,r,,.!h'gi,stated that the hours of operation would be 8 a m, to 5 p.m.
Monday,Tuesday,Thursday and Friday and closed on Wednesday;Saturday from
9 a.m, to noon and occasionally on Tuesday nights until 7 p.m.` Ms. Littner stated
that she sees approximately 840 patients per day,' Ma. ,Littuer stated that the
t wouldlbe indoors..
aa�in�alstl�a.t would be.Xao�.�sedovexnaig overnight
Barbara liodins...C,haiLbtatugalleighlwrimiAslesiation,stated that she had met
with the owner and architect on two occasions and they have written some deed
restrictions and provided those to the 13oard. Ms. l3odin stated that the restrictions
refer to noise and odor. Ms. Bodin stated that the association was in favor of the
proposal. '))
40 ORB 8/3/92 Minutes
Page 5 of 4
0
Delibmahoa
IP
The Board thanked the association for worldng with the applicant and showing
support of the application. The Board concurred with the staff report and.were in
r, favor of the application and felt it was ani prprovennent of the site,
Ms. Stiven moved for approval of )213, 14-92 with the proposed conditions by
staff. Ms.Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Bloomer,Ms. Silveri,
Mr.Sievert and Ms.Remy voting in favor.
VI. GENERAL PLANNING
Mr.Galante stated that there was a need for a special meeting which was scheduled
for August 31, 1992 at 5.45 p.m. The meeting will last approximately two hours.
Any issues to be discussed needed to be submitted by August 17. ,.
VIE OTHER BUSINESS-none
VIII. ADJOURNMENT tA,
With no further business to come before the Board, Acting Chairman Sievert
adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:30 p.m.
411
DRl3 8/3/92 Minutes
Page 4 of
�� an l/
ci
a
`>
n �1
(F A:
ci
If
D
t7
7
rd} J C
d � n � 1
0 o o o 9 �
it p
r 11 {fi t 01
l; cl .�
0 f�
(I
th ,
(J c
O
Q
DRAFT
411 "��ru�..(ry y`�/yCITY
j I T�Y��O/�F ILA j}A X E�j O Sy'M'r�/'�'%E GfO�
DE !.ELO.Ik M,ENTORE.` IA4�1 1 7 �JOARD
August 117,1992
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Development Review Board meeting of August 17,x992 was called to order
by Chairman Stanaway at approximately 7;30 p,m,
IL ROLL CALL i
Board members present were Mr. bloomer,Ms.Stiven,Mr.Poster,Mr,
$tanaway,Ms,Remy and Mr, Palconi, Mr.Sievert was excused.Staff members
present included Robert Galante,Senior Planner;Hamid Pishvaie,Development
Review Planner;Cynthia Phillips,Deputy City Attorney;and Barbara Anderson,
Senior Secretary.
r\
III. APPROVAL OP MINUTES
Ms. Remy moved for op nut f ab'
Poster seconded the motion and it carried with Mr,,Poster,Ms.Remy and Mr. :,_
Palconi voting in favor, Mr,Bloomer,Ms. Stiven and Mr Stanaway abstained,
Ms.Stiven moved for al pxoyal of the-J t , Ms.Remy
seconded thu,motion and it passed with Mr. Bloomer,Ms,'rStivexA Mr. Poster,
Ms. Remy and Mr. Palconi voting in favor, r,Stanaway abstains i to
IV, PETITIONS AND C OMIWUNICATIONS none
V. PUBLIC HEARING
,D • 2,3 request by Architects tiarrentine Bates_Lee for approval to construct
a 14,350 square foot office building. The site is located west of Lana Drive,
Mercantile
adjacent to ercantile'Village (Tax Lots$200,9400,9500,9600 of`fax Map 271E
S13C).
DRI3 8/17/92 Minutes
Page 1 of
Cr
Agek Chairman Stanaway asked if there was any ex parte contact or bias in regard to
this applicatiun; Mr.Bloomer excused himself from the hearing due to ex parte
contact and conflict of interest.
Mr. Pishvaie entered into the record Exhibit#21;a letter in support of the
application from Mr. Elwood and Exhibit#22;a color board. Mr. Pishvaie
presented the staff report and discussed the applicable criteria,permitted,use,
setbacks and traffic report,
Mr. Pishvaie stated that the traffic study included several intersections in the
area. Mr.Pishvaie said that the traffic report requested that ridership,bicycle
racks and public transportation be implemented in the application. Staff
recommended that the final transportation management program be provided in
accordance with LOC 48,31$. Mr. Pishvaie stated that carpooling,flex times and
job sharing would help reduce peak traffic flow.
Mr Pishvaie stated that in regards to building design the proposal does not
comply with the standards. Mr. Pishvaie stated that if this was on a larger lot or
with more landscaping it would have been a good addition to the area.
Fiowever,the current site plan does not provide adequate landscaping between
the building and the sidewalk, Staff finds that it does not create a
complimentary relationship along the west side of Lana Drive.
1111 Mr.Pishvaie stated that the elevation was not in good relation to the street. Staff
recommends that the building and or site design be modified to create a better
relationship with elements of the surrounding buildings and landscaped or
natural environment
Staff finds that the application does not comply with the applicable criteria and
recommends the hearing be continued to a date certain so the applicant would
have time.to address all of the issues that were outlined in the staff report,
APPlicant
Amato,stated that after reading the staff report he was glad to see a provision
in there that stated that burden of proof was on the applicant.
Mr.Allred argued that the building design does comply with the City's
standards in every way; that they can satisfactorily comply with all City and
State water quality standards with the current landscape design; and that they
need all of the on-site parking spaces incorporated in the design and that they
ORB 8/17/92;Minutes
4, Page 2of
0
o
ink can have them without restricting the ability to comply with the storm water
IF quality requirements.
Mr Allred stated that the site grading plan adequately allows them to store the•
{- "
required storm water detention in the parking lot, He indicated that it was
necessary for the proposal to exceed the parking site standards in order to
receive financing, Mr.Allred introduced Exhibit#23 a letter from Todd Harding
with Harding/Fletcher Mortgage Company. Mr.Allred stated that the project
could not be financed with a lack of
parking,
Mr.Allred stated there is no landscaping separation required on Lana Drive,
however there is a parking area there. He noted that there is a planting area
between the sidewalk and street, Mr.Allred stated that the project was going to
widen Lana Drive to 24' all the way to Douglas way, The only place the
buildings overlap is for a 20' distance, He indicated that all plantings being put
in are mature plantings, Mr, Allred said that the Sisters of Providence said„they
were limited to a 5,000 sq.ft. one story building due to the wetlands and parking
requirements,
Mr Allred stated that they have tried to complement the surrounding area with
this design and feel they have accomplished that, He mentioned that this would
be an owner occupied building. Mr. Allred stated that they have met with the
4111 neighborhood association and it appears they like the design of the project,
ban slaks.,Slomgz presented Exhibit#2 a
prospective view of what the building would look like. Mr. dates stated,that this
project was very carefully designed and would be a quality asset to the City.
Mr. Bates said that this project meets or exceeds every code and ordinance
requirement that the City has,. He noted that this is a fairly difficult site to
develop with restrictions;101 setback on north side;C2,, etback along the street
side,and a 60' setback from the residential zone which can bc;rredUced for every
foot that you stay under 40' in building height, Mr. Sates stated that they have
exceeded the minimum requirement on the residential as a desire of the
neighborhood association. Mr.Bates stated that their electrical engineer strongly
suggest using 250 watt high pressure sodium instead of 150 watt high pressure
sodium due to adding more light fixtures.
St Nata,,,LansistalleArskiiti,st stated that the requirement for landscaping is
15%and they have landscaped 17,5%, They are trying to maximize landscaping
adjacent to the residential area, The plants are sized and spaced so the project
has a finished appearance. All sides of the parking are screened by evergreen
hedge. The driveway is defined by a planting bed,
DR0 8/17/92 Minutes
410 Page 3ot'6
_
stated that there are three water quality
swales on the site n the west + the propertystaff feelsthat
these are adequate;however,staff questions the size of the one in the southwest
corner, Ms,McMillan stated that the calculations she used were On a 10 year
storm design', Ms..McMillan stated that this swale will hold 20 times the amount
of water necessary to be held, r
stated the City has a maximum of 50%lot coverage and this
application is 34,32% Mr,Allred stated that they have demonstrated that the
project fully complies with all the standards and codes, Mr,Allred stated that
their experts testified that they have met and exceed the requirement for Storm
water detention and run-off protection within the confines of the existing
landscape plan, Mr.,Allred said that this project would be an asset to the City
and he would like to see this projected approved with the suggested conditions,
r, ,Aired introduced Exhibit#25 to the foard which was suggested conditions
I of approval,
The Board asked the applicant many questions regarding traffic,landseapin ►
building materials,swales,parking,elevation of buildings,setbacks,plantings,
lighting,etc.
�.. t; stated that he is the only adjacent
laud owner,however he is neither for nor against at this tune because helms not
had the opportunity to review this application and would request that the board
continue the hearing,
Ms Stiven asked Mr,Uarnett if he had previously been notified, Mrs,ilarnett
stand that he had not received ainythitis,
� �t fAt t`g .. ahKtaAto.o m stated that the
area around property is zoned t(-7.5. Ms,Bodie stated that for the last years
there has been metal barricades at the dead-end, Ms,ilodin thanked the ;
applicant for taking care in designing the property, Ms,tioditt stated that the
setbacks are okay and they would prefer setbacks on the neighborhood, Ms,
'bodin stated that the majority of the people in their nssodiation.tire for the project
Ana some are neutral,however nobody is opposed to the project, Ms,flodin
suggested a right-turn-only un Douglas Way onto boones Perry, Ms,Bodir►
ORE 8 17/92 Minutes
age 4 o
Ask stated that they are happy to see the project proposed and feels it is an
improvement on the site.
Rebuttal
11i11 Allred,stated that they had to design the project,to meet the standards of
the City and feel that has been acc.Smplished. They have been in contact with
the neighborhood and want the neighbors happy.
Deputy City Attorney,Cindy Phillips,recommended that the Board leave the
record open for 7 days for written input and continue the hearing to September
9, 1992 for rebuttal and staff response.
Ms.Remy moved for gontinuanceof DR 15-9 to September 9, 1,992. Mr.
Falcon).* seconded the motion and it passed with MS,Stiven,Mr.:poster,Mr.
Stanaway,Ms nervy and Mr. Palconi
VI. GENERAL PLANNING
Chairman Stanaway stated that they had received a memo from. the American
Planning Association Oregon Chapter regarding a Planning Commissioner
training program. Mr.Stanaway aeited how many of the Board members would
di be interested. The program would be held on September 21 and the fee would
be$60.00. Board members who would be able to attend would be Mr.Palconi
and Mr.Stanaway.
VXI. OTHER BUSINESS rindings, Conclusions and Order
Stiven moved for np w Findings, Conclusion and
Order. Mr.Bloomer seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Bloomer,Ms.
Stiven,Mr. Poster,Mr.Stanaway,Ms.Remy and Mr.Falconi voting in favor.
Ms.Remy moved for ap, - - " ,Findings, Conclusion and
Order(first vote). Mr.Bloomer seconded the motion and it carried with Mr.
Bloomer,Mr.poster and Ms. Reny voting in favor. Mr.Palconi,Mr,Stanaway
and Ms. Stiven abstained.
Ms. Stiven moved for ap - ,Findings,Conclusion and
Order(first vote). Ms.Remy seconded the motion and it carried with Mr,
Bloomer,Mr.Poster and Ms, Remy voting in favor. Mr.Falcons,Mr.Stanaway
and Ms. Stiven abstained
DRl3 8/17/92 Minutes
40Page 5 of
t
+ ' III. ADJOURNMENT
With no fu ibex business to come before the baard1 the meeting was adjourned dt ,
4pproxil,uate1y 9:30 p.m,
o
t
0
il
it
i
DRB 8/17/92�Mihutcs
0
Page 6of6
U
6
1 6 p! jI
h
}
/
I
tt ti3
}
a
f/
.7p
CZ
•
i) �.
0
r�
CITY OP LAB OS' GO •
imp I)BVBLOPIVMENT R VtEW BOARD MINUTES
, AUGUST 31, 1992 - ;a ,.,
SPECIAL MEETING 1
,
e. iti
I. CALL TO ORIEI
The Uevelopntent Review Board special meeting of August 31, 1992 was called to
order by Chairman Stanaway at 6 OO p.mi "'
II. 1WLL CALL
fir`
Board memberspresent were Mr. Bloomer, Ms, Stiven, Mr. Sievcrt,' tr, Stanaway,
Ms.Remy and Mr.Falcone. Mr,Poster was absent. Also present were Tom Coffee,
Planning Director; Robert Galante, Senior Planrter; Barbara Smoak, Associate
Planner. Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Plattner Jeff Condit;City Attorney; and Barbara
Anderson, Senior Secretary.
III. APPROVAL OP MINUTES c'
f'1
Mr.Sievert moved for;,ipnroval o#"the tinkle 1.ti1992„Minutes(Second ' 4te). Ms
Kenney seconded the motion and it passed with'Mr, Sievert, Ms. Remy and Mr.
Falconi all voting yes. Mr. Bloomer, Ms. Stiven and Mr. Stanttway abstained,
IV. OTHER BUSINESS -Findings, Conclusions and Order
Mr Sievert moved for annrov, l of.DA 1 -92.971 'ini`li ;5t+ oncinsions and
rder_(Scooted Vote)t Ms. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.
Bloomer,Mr. Sievert,Ms. Renny and Mr, Falcone all votinu yes, Ms Stiven and Mr.
Stanaway abstained.
Ms. Stiven moved for apurovtit of DR 14.92-9701 Findings. ,Cntnciusions and
Order (Second Vote). Mr. Sievert seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.
Bloomer, Ms,Stiven,Mr, Sievert and Ms.Remy all vatic g yes. Mr Sctanaway and
Mr. Falcone abstained,
V. PETIgfIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
None,
VI. .PUI3L1C HEARING
None,
RE Minutes 08/31/92
Page 1. of 7"
VII, GENERAL PLANNING - Workshop
Chairman Stanawa discussed the purpose of the meeting and topics,of discussion
for the evening.
Purpose of the Development Review Board
Condit discussed the difference between the role of the Planning Commission
and the role of the Development Review Board, He explained that the Development
Review Board's purpose was to serve as the hearing body fpir land use applications
or appeals of staff decisions. He noted that the Planning Commission's purpose was
to act as a policy body to enact or make recommendations and develop the actual
ordinances, Mr.Condit pointed out that the majority of the Planning Commission's
role was legislative decision making; however, that some quasiludicial applications
were considered by the Planning Commission simply because City ordinances require
so,
Mr, Condit noted that the Board's role, as a quasi-judicial body, was similar to that
of a judge. He explained that the burden of proof was on the applicant and that they
had to prove that all of the applicable criteria could be satisfied, Mr. Condit noted
that the process allows evidence;'to be submitted by the applicant, proponents,
opponents, and persons neither for nor against the case. He reminded the Board that
41) their role was to weigh the evidence against the criteria for approval and not to be
advocates for or against the proposal.
Mr. Condit mentioned that one problem that the Board faces is that they must apply
the City Code to State and Pederal laws. He pointed out that portions of the City's
Code were out of date and not in compliance with State and Federal lawn
Mr. Condit discussed the "limited land use decision, which regard subdivisions,
partitions and site design (majority of case loads heard by the Development Review
Board), He reiterated the key "due process" provision that allows every applicant to
present and rebut testimony, Mr. Condit cautioned the Board about allowing new
evidence to be entered into the record during the rebuttal period, He pointed out that
the applicant was only allowed to address those issues that are raised in testimony
and opposition. He suggested that when the Chairman called for rebuttal he should
inform the applicant of the issues to be rebutted and point out that no new evidence
would be allowed.
Mr. Condit stated that if new evidence was allowed in the record during rebuttal, then
the opponents have the right to have the hearing continued so that they can respond
to that new evidence. He noted that if the applicant responds to issues raised during
testimony by referring to information already in the record, that is not considered
new evidence. Mr, Condit stressed that the opponents must request for the hearing
410 to be continued if they feel new evidence has been presented,
DRB Minutes 08/31/92
Page 2 of 7
„elk (( The Board asked whether or not they had to consider new evidence that was entered
lip into the record. Mr. Condit recommended that the Development Review Board
should always allow new evidence into the record, because this was the only
opportunity to build the entire record. He pointed out that when a case is appealed
to Council or LUBA it is based on the record before the Development Review Board.
The Board inquired about the "120 day rule”, Mr. Condit explained that new
evidence,presented by the applicant, was mounds for continuance and that the City
would be exempt from the 120 day rule during the continuance period. Mr, Condit
mentioned that if new evidence is submitted by the opponents then the board would
have the option of asking the applicant if they would like to waive the 120 day rule
and have a continuance in order to address the issues or whether they wanted to
rebut that evidence immediately, Mr. Condit pointed-out that there was a new
provision in State law that allowed anybody the right to request that the record be left
open for 7 days, for no apparent reason. Mr. Condit stated that the 7 day period
would be exempt from the 120 rule,
Mr. Condit discussed the appeal process, explaining that the final written order was
the final decision. Mr. Condit encouraged the Board to adopt a policy to nig
consider "Motion(s) for Reconsideration". He explained that recently an applicant
had come before the Board and requested that the Board consider their "Motion for
Reconsideration" and then turned around and attempted to sue the City for not
al) complying with the 120 rule.
Mr. Condit went on to explain the steps of the appeal process. He noted that the
Council's deliberation was based totally on the Development Review Board's record.
Mr. Condit reiterated that for this reason, the Board should make sure that they build
an adequate record. Be pointed out that every Board decision is appealable to
Council, Mr.Condit mentioned that after Council decision,any aggrieved party had
the right to appeal to LUBA and that decision is also on the record made before the
Development Review Board,
Facilitating Meetings
Mr.Coffee discussed the topic_of facilitating meetings. He presented handouts on
"Ten Techniques to Demon,strrte;Fairness', b
Members, t p in Derision Making Process, and Qroup,Decision Making". Mr,
Coffee discussed each of these handouts, giving examples of when and how the
Board could use these techniques to help facilitate the meetings.
The Board discussed with Mr. Coffee the need to move through all of the issues
raised by the public. Mr. Coffee agreed that it was important to acknowledge the
issues and dispose of them. Mr. Condit suggested that the Board call for motions to
dispose of issues rather than homing a free for all discussion.
4110
DRB Minutes 08/31/92
Page 3 ot.7
Mr. Coffee noted that staff could be involved in some of the facilitating roles, The
Board acknowledged that they depend,on staff to layout the procedural issues/options,
The 13oard\expressed an interest for staff to discuss the background on the proposal
and the work that has gone into the accepted proposal. Mr. Galante pointed out that
staff did not want to appear as the advocate for the proposal and that the Board
should rely on testimony and evidence presented by the applicant and opponents,
Mr. Condit agreed that staff needed to appear fair and unbiased.
The Board questioned Mr. Condit about when it would be appropriate to question
staff, Mr. Condit replied that any time; however, he noted that it would be helpful
if the Board could get questions out on the table before the hearing. Be stated that
this would allow all issues to be on the table and allow everybody an opportunity to
address the issues. Mr, Condit pointed out that it was better not to ask staff
questions and deliberate during the testimony because it slows the heari•
ng down and
appears that the Board's decision is already made'.up before deliberation.
The Board discussed the meeting procedures and when to allow someone to have 10
or 5 minutes for testimony. Mr. Coffee suggested that staff provide the Board with
Council rules for allowing testimony, Mr. Condit pointed out that legally, testimony
can only be "seeded" from one person to another, if the other person was present in
the audience.
Applying the Building Design Standard
Mr.Galante discussed the meaning of the Building Design Standard,referring to two
memorandums dated 1981 and 1986. He pointed out that the standard related
specifically to the aesthetic appearance of the building. Mr. Galante noted that the
standard addressed the setbacks as they relate to commercial structures and retail
uses. He mentioned that there were no specific setbacks described in the Commercial
zone unless they were adjacent to residential uses.
Mr. Galante stated that the Building Design Standard was divided into two general
categories; 1) those standards which relate to aesthetic issues; and 2) those standards
which relate to health and welfare issues.
Mr. Galante discussed the terminology used in the Building Design Standard,
explaining that "complementary"was considered to encourage a design relationship
that was positive relating to the visual aspects of the building and adjacent and
surrounding uses. kle indicated that "adjacent" was defined as being across the street
from, touching,abutting,next door or"across a small creek", Mr. Galante explained
that "universe" referred to surrounding immediate area, not miles away. He noted
that"built environment"included human made,surrounding objects such as buildings,
streets and bridges. Mr. Galante stated that "good design" was an arrangement of
elements having a desirable quality of a favorable character.
1110
DRB Minutes 08/31/92
Page 4 of 7
l,.r
Mr, Galante noted that the Code was worded to address the design relationship of
IIP building to building, the design relationship of buildings to the existing natural
environment, the design relatiortsh,.p of building to planned landscaping and the
design relationship of building elements such as roof lines, chimneys, siding,
windows, etc,
The Board commented that sometimes the proposal meets the criteria for approval,
however, they are not completely satisfied with the proposal and some aspects could
be better designed, They questioned staff about appropriate options. Mr. Galante
stated that the Board had the option to deny the proposal if they were not satisfied
with the design, because the applicant bears the burden of proof. Mr. Coffee
suggested that the Board inform the applicant that they are not satisfied with the
design aspects and give them the option to waive the 120 day rule to redesign the
project or deny the proposal. Mr. Coffee reiterated that if they Board was not !
satisfied with the design, the Building Design Standard allows the Board the option
for denial even if all other criteria are met.
The Board questioned staff about when an application is denied by the Board and
when the applicant has an opportunity to resubmit their proposal. Mr. Galante noted
that if the building was redesigned so that it was substantially different then it could
be resubmitted at any time, Mr. Condit noted that if they Board denied a proposal
because of an articulated reason then the applicant can address that reason and
le resubmit immediately.
The Board discussed setting meeting time limits, They agreed to start their meetings
beginning at 7:00 p.m,and to ending them at 11:00 p.m. The Board noted that at the
beginning of a meeting they would announce to the audience that the meeting would
end at 11:00 p.m. and be continued to the next available agenda.
Ms. Remy moved that the Development Review Board meeting times be change
to start at 7:00 p.m, and end at 11:00 n.m.i,unless affirmatively agreed upon by
a motion to extend the meeting. Mr. Sievert seconded the motion and it passed
with Mr. Bloomer, Ms. Stiven, Mr. Sievert, Ms. Remy and Mr. Falconi all voting
yes. Mr. Stanaway voted no.
Transportation Rule
Mr. Condit explained that six months ago LCDC adopted the new Transportation
Rule to implement Goal 12,Transportation,Goal. He noted that concurrent with that
rule the Department of Transportation had been working on an overall Oregon
Transportation Plan, part of which would implement. Goal 12. He stated that the
biggest concept in the rule and in the plan was the transition from car to "multi.
modal", He explained that "multi-modal" was classified as everything or anything
but car (bicycle, carpool, train,bus, etc.).
DRB Minutes 08/31/92
Page 5 of 7
0
M,r.Condit stated that the City would be required to comply with Coal 12 by 1996.
.111111 He indicated that the City would be required to have provisions adopted into their
Codes and Comprehensive Plan by this time. He indicated that the Transportation
Plan was different for various jurisdictions based upon the number of citizens within
each jurisdiction. Mr: Condit noted that Lake Oswego was subject to the most strict
rules because of being within the Metro jurisdiction.
Mr Condit indicated that the Lake Oswego Transportation Plan will have to include
the following:
1) Adoption of \road plan for a network of arterials and collectors (which is sort of
what the Piai ing Commission and.Transportation Committee has been working
on);
2) Adoption of a public transportation plan;
3) Adoption of a bicycle and pedestrian plan (will require modifications to the
iscur ntlunderway);
S projectthat currently l .
p
Y
4) Adoption of an air,rail, water and pipeline plan, (the City has'no airport, so an
air plan would not be required; however, the public transportation corridor for
Southern Pacific is being considered by Tri-Met for a commuter line to Tualatin).
al, and
5) Adoption of policies and land use regulations for implementing the Transportation
System Plan,
Mr. Condit indicated that adoption of a Transportation System Plan and Demand
Management Plan would require an evaluation of the feasibility of a transportation
plan and,air quality issues. Mr. Condit noted that the Department of Environmental
Quality Was developing a number of rules that the State and the Metro area would
need to comply with to reduce emissions.
Mr, Condit pointed out that a parking plan would need to be included in the
Transportation Plan. The parking plan would be required to achieve a 10%reduction
in the number of parking spaces per capita Over the 30 year planning period.
Mr, Condit stated that another aspect of the Transportation Plan requites
consideration of VMT(Vehicle Miles Traveled) with the idea being to cut down on
the VMT by offering alternative transportation routes, He indicated that this would
reduce the amount of wear and tear on the roads,reduce the need for increased roads
and reduce air pollution. Mr. Condit noted that the first goal was to have no VMT
increase within the next 10 years.lip
Mr. Condit indicated that this was a joint planning effort by METRO, O1)OT, and
DRS Minutes 08/31/92
Page 6 of 7
ink l..CDC, He stated that``the City would be governed these rules, He pointed out that
INF the City would be responsible for developing and implementing our city's portions
of the plan, but subject to METRO rules,
Mr, Condit noted that this City was almost at build-cut, so our job would be easier.
He stated that there were measurable objectives to the plan, We would be required
to show a shift to bike, rail, carpool and rearranging of land use or other means of
transit oriented development that would encourage density,
VIII, ADJOURNME$T
There being no further business before the Development Review Board, Chairman
Stanaway adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m,
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Anderson
Senior Secretary
till(WP l)l*nga3t 2.MIN
f
1)R13 Minutes 08/31/92
Page 7 of 7
0
0
(i
it
•
, I
•
•
•