Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2009-09-09 14 OW o�LAKEosIt,t A k �AIIIM O "` 1, I 1!41 A City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes September 9, 2009 OREGON I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Alby Heredia called the Development Review Commission (DRC) meeting of September 9, 2009 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: Vice Chair Alby Heredia, Gregg B. Creighton, Don Richards, Peter Scott and Frank Rossi. Chair Krystyna Stadnik and Bob Needham were not present. Staff present: Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support. III. MINUTES (None) IV. PUBLIC HEARING LU 09-0009, a request by George Puterbaugh, Trustee, and George and Mary Glass for approval of the following: • A one-parcel partition to legalize Tax Lot 1902 • A Class 2 variance to the Access Standard [50.57.016] for Tax Lot 1902 as a part of the partition request. This standard requires every lot to provide a 25- foot frontage on a public street. Tax Lot 1902 does not have any frontage on a public street and will take access via a private access easement • A lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 1900 and 1902 • Class 2 variances to the lot width and depth standards for Tax Lot 1902 • Removal of seven trees to construct the necessary infrastructures Location of property: 16715 Phantom Bluff Ct. and adjacent vacant lot (Tax Lot 1900 and 1902 of Tax Map 21E 09CC). Continued from August 3, 2009. Vice Chair Heredia opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contact, bias or conflict of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. Heredia, Creighton, Scott and Richards each reported they had made a site visit and visited the Yearsley's property. Heredia and Richards each reported they had listened to the audio recording of the previous hearing. Each of the Commissioners present declared his business or occupation as follows: Creighton (architect); Heredia (real estate broker); Richards (arborist and landscape architect); Rossi (architectural drafter and designer); and Scott (engineering/design). When invited by the Vice Chair no one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Debra Andreades, Senior Planner presented the staff report (dated July 24, 2009 and Staff Memorandum dated September 4, 2009). She recalled the issue still to be resolved was that neighbors objected to legalizing Tax Lot 1902 —which did not meet the legal lot width requirement - because development on it would obstruct their view. The code allowed such a lot to be legalized if that would not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood. The opponents argued obstruction of their view was a significant negative impact on the neighborhood. Staff recommended that the Commissioners look at the existing development pattern in the vicinity and the view from specific properties to determine the degree of impact. Staff had arranged the site visits and visits to the Yearsley's property so the Commissioners could get an idea of how much of neighbors' views would be obstructed by potential development on the site. Staff memorandum reported that the existing, general pattern of development along Phantom Bluff Court was large houses on large lots, with houses spread across the lot width. Staff also found there were many trees in the neighborhood that generally compromised the view of the lake of residents on the south side of Phantom Bluff Court. The next issue was whether the proposed development on the site would obstruct views more than what would be expected if the site was conforming to the zone requirement. (Maps A and B). Staff found that if the subject lot was of similar width and size as other lots in the neighborhood and developed in a similar way, development on the site would create a greater obstruction of the Yearsley's view. They also found that if the lot were reconfigured so it fanned out in front and the lot frontage met the code requirement, but the rest of the lot was not changed and the proposed development on it was not changed, there would be no review to build on it. Staff concluded that the current lot configuration and proposed site plan - with the deficient lot width — created a lesser degree of view obstruction than if the lot were similar to the other lots in the neighborhood and development was spread across thelot width. They recommended approval of the application. During the questioning period, staff corrected the Staff Memorandum to read that the site lot would have to be widened about 32 feet at the front building line in order to meet the zone requirement of 65 feet. They clarified that if the entire lot were widened to conform to the neighborhood pattern, they would expect the future house to be spread across the width. But they advised that it would only be necessary to fan out the current lot shape toward the street so the lot width met the code to be able to build the same development form the applicants anticipated without the need for a review. They clarified they were talking about "virtual" lot width, because Phantom Bluff Court was not a public street. Gary Shepherd stated that the applicants waived their right to additional time to submit a final written argument. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 7 Minutes of September 9, 2009 Deliberations • Staff advised the maximum height allowed was 35 feet and the code allowed certain exceptions to height that could be up to six feet higher. When asked, they confirmed that the DRC could apply conditions of approval that reduced allowable height and eliminated the ability to use the exceptions if they found that was necessary to make the future house consistent with the neighborhood pattern of development. Mr. Heredia observed those conditions could mitigate the impact on the neighborhood The Commissioners noted that although Mr. Shepherd's September 1, 2009, letter talked about potentially building the house into the hillside if subsurface conditions permitted, no evidence had been submitted to show that was possible. Staff advised the Commissioners that they did not necessarily have to have the geotechnical information. They could impose conditions that controlled the height of or placement of the structures if they thought that would have less impact on the neighborhood (result in less obstruction of views) than the proposed plan. That would leave it to the applicant to find out when they started grading if they could meet those conditions. Ms. Andreades advised the code related side yard setbacks to allowable height. For example, if the garage were over 18 feet high it would have to be farther from the side lines than if it were less than 18 feet high. The Commissioners observed Mr. Shepherd's September 1, 2009, letter said they proposed to build a 10 to 12 foot tall garage and use a sloping roof that would increase the Yearsley's view corridor. The letter said they estimated the basement of the house could rest on basalt rock that they expected to be about seven feet from the ground surface. But the Commissioners were not sure the renderings the applicant offered were accurate enough to assess the impact. When asked, Ms. Andreades recalled there had been some balloons placed to show where the proposed garage would be, but she could not confirm they had been set at 18 feet. Mr. Heredia observed the August 31, 2009 letter from the Yearsleys indicated they would be satisfied if the house was limited to a single-level with a basement and did not exceed 15-18 feet height. Mr. Creighton observed that Shepherd's letter related that the applicants were willing to agree to remove the possibility of using height exceptions and they would agree to garage height of 10 — 12 feet. He advised that 12-foot height would be more "workable" than 10 feet, so he recommended a 12-foot limit. He confirmed that the roof could be shaped in a manner that created a view corridor from the Yearsley's lot. The Commissioners then considered the relationship of the house and garage. Mr. Creighton advised that even if the garage were limited to 12 feet, the house would stick up farther than the garage and become the primary view-blocking element. The Commissioners examined Exhibit E-9, Existing Ground Profile. They asked staff how they might craft a condition that set the maximum height at the front of the lot at 12 feet (that was the maximum height of the garage) and limited the height of the house behind and downslope to the garage's highest City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 7 Minutes of September 9, 2009 elevation. Staff advised a surveyor could find what that elevation was and it could be used as the maximum elevation for the house and garage; or, the Commissioners could adjust and specify maximum allowable height at different points down the slope. The Commissioners tried to interpret and compare the graphic exhibits showing the structures on the slope that the applicant had provided. They wondered if there was any reason the house could not be positioned further downslope, towards the lake. Staff observed the slope got even steeper closer to the lake. Mr. Heredia commented that the applicant could have provided clearer evidence that would have made the decision easier. He suggested the Commissioners stop trying to look for alternatives that might solve the building placement issue for the applicant and focus on the primary objective to determine if the design that had been presented significantly impacted the neighbors' view. Mr. Heredia said he believed the design that had been presented would be a significant impact to the neighbors' view. Mr. Creighton disagreed. He recalled neighbor's overall view was much larger scope than just the view down Tax Lot 1902. He said because of the topography of the site, any structure on it would impede neighbor's view and they would not be able to see the shoreline. He believed the structure the applicant depicted together with conditions of approval that eliminated use of height exceptions and limited the height of the garage would help. The neighbors would have a view over their access easement to the lake. Mr. Rossi agreed the conditions of approval should allow no height exceptions; limit the house height to 35 feet; and limit garage height to 12 feet. He said the DRC should not approve removal of any trees on the site because there had been no evidence provided that showed any had to be removed. Mr. Richards related that he had visited the site that day. As he stood close to the Yearsley's house he had estimated that a 12-foot high garage would likely be too high for them to see over. That was "significant impact." Based on the renderings he had seen, it would change some views for the entire neighborhood, but it was especially significant impact on the Yearsleys' main view. He believed that some other development design could be built on the site that would not obstruct their view as much. He said he had hoped the applicant would offer better evidence than the crude renderings and survey they had provided, but what they had provided still gave him a rough idea of the view. He noted they had provided submittals with conflicting information. When Mr. Heredia asked, Mr. Creighton said if the topography shown in the exhibits was correct, there was potential to build the house farther into the hillside and put the entry to the house a full story below the garage elevation. When the Commissioners asked, Ms. Andreades explained that the code specified that height in a cut area was measured from the cut grade and height in a filled area was measured from the original grade. Mr. Creighton said his opinion was the renderings showing the potential views from the Yearsley's home that were attached to Gary Shepherd's August 25th letter as Exhibit 2, were fairly accurate representations of the impact on their views that he envisioned as he stood in the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 7 Minutes of September 9,2009 Yearsley's upper patio. There was still a view of part of the lake. Mr. Richards recalled he found the view from inside the Yearsley's house would be impacted even more. Mr. Heredia recalled the farther south one walked in the house the worse the impact would be. Mr. Heredia then recessed the public hearing for a few minutes to allow Mr. Shepherd to consult with his clients. He and the other Commissioners continued with the General Planning part of the agenda (see below) before reconvening the hearing. Mr. Shepherd then came forward and offered to answer questions if the Commissioners were confused about what the Exhibits showed. The Commissioners were reluctant to reopen the hearing for that because it would require them to reopen it to anyone else who wanted to respond. Shepherd then stated that the applicant wanted the DRC to make their decision that evening. The Commissioners re-examined the slope profile exhibits. Mr. Heredia pointed out the applicants had already proposed where the building envelope was to be so the Commissioners should determine if that significantly impacted the view instead of looking for alternative locations. Mr. Boone agreed they should look at the site design the applicant had submitted. If they found it significantly impacted the view then they could consider whether there could be conditions of approval that could lessen the impact. Mr. Heredia observed that eliminating the second floor of the house would substantially improve the view if the garage were not in the way. He related that he was leaning toward denial. Mr. Creighton indicated he felt there might be a design solution that would reduce impacts, but the inconsistency of evidence was a problem. Mr. Rossi indicated he could approve the application subject to conditions of approval that removed the exceptions to height and limited the house to 35 feet and the garage to 12 feet. Mr. Creighton saw an aesthetics- related issue that when someone looked down from Phantom Bluff Court he/she saw the mass of the garage and the house roof behind it. He suggested eliminating the height exceptions and reducing the allowable height of the house to 32 feet. He said that would address impacts better than any adjustment to the garage. He said he agreed that the angular garage roof improved the view corridor. Mr. Heredia said removing the second floor would result in a big improvement in view. Mr. Richards said he was uncomfortable applying an arbitrary height limit and assuming that would lessen the significance of the view obstruction. He was more inclined to deny the application. When asked, Mr. Boone advised the DRC could not legalize a lot unless they found the proposed development on it would be consistent with the neighborhood pattern. Mr. Creighton wanted to ask the applicant to present the Commissioners with a more accurate depiction of what the development would look like. But Mr. Boone recalled the applicant wanted the DRC to make a decision based on the evidence they had already submitted. If the DRC denied the application they could file a new one, or appeal the DRC decision to the City Council. Mr. Heredia observed that he and Richards were uncomfortable City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 7 Minutes of September 9, 2009 second-guessing and figuring out alternatives. He said he had no idea whether any height restrictions the DRC imposed would accomplish the goal of minimizing the impact on the view. Mr. Creighton moved to approve LU 09-0009 subject to the conditions of approval recommended by the staff and conditions of approval that the applicant had indicated they could agree including the removal of height exceptions and limited garage height. Mr. Rossi seconded the motion and it failed 2:3. Richards, Scott and Heredia voted against. Mr. Richards moved to deny LU 09-0009. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed 4:1. Mr. Creighton voted against. Mr. Heredia announced the final vote would be held on September 21, 2009. LU 09-0007, an appeal by Michael and Lori Gilroy of Planning Director's approval of a request by Don and Kelly McMahon for six Class 1 variances to construct a new single family dwelling: • A 5-foot reduction of required 25-foot front yard setback to 20 feet; • A variable 3-foot reduction to the required 30-foot rear yard setback to 27 feet for a portion of a covered rear porch; • A 3-toot reduction to the required 15-foot combined total side yard setbacks (for portions of the structure < 18' in height) to a combined total of 12 feet for both sides with a minimum of 5 feet on the east side; • Two 2-foot reductions to the required 10-foot side yard setbacks (for portions of the structure >18' in height); and, • A 15% increase (or 222.5 sq. ft.) to the maximum allowed lot coverage for a total of 1,895 sq. ft. Location of property: 4423 West Bay Road (Tax Lot 1500 of Tax Map 21E 17BB). Staff reported that both the applicant and appellants had asked the DRC to continue this hearing for two weeks to Monday, September 21, 2009. V. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS LU 06-0019, request to change approved materials Ralph Tahran, architect, and Steve Kaer, property owner, returned to the DRC to offer a sample of the manufactured stone they wanted to use. Ms. Andreades recalled that the DRC had conditioned approval of this commercial development on use of real stone, but the conditions of approval offered the applicant the possibility of using cultured stone instead if the DRC agreed to the quality and the manner in which the material met the windows. The applicant explained the project budget precluded using real stone. The cultured El Dorado stone they wanted to use had been used on a number of Lake Oswego buildings and it was City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 7 Minutes of September 9, 2009 hard to tell the difference between that and real stone. They submitted a small sample of El Dorado, Veneto Field Ledge, stones and showed a picture of what it looked like on a full grout panel. Staff advised that the original conditions of approval established the approved colors and staff was to ensure the color of the stone material was compatible. Mr. Creighton advised that he used cultured stone because it looked natural, but did not have the flaws that stood out when natural stones were put together. He also advised that the terms, "Cultured," and "El Dorado," described specific manufacturers. Tahran confirmed El Dorado, Field Ledge stone came in other hues besides Veneto Field Ledge. Mr. Creighton moved to approve the use of El Dorado stone in the Field Ledge style, in a color that was consistent with the original conditions of approval. Mr. Richards seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous 5:0. VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Vice Chair Heredia adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, .6'40 nice Reynolds Administrative Support L\DRClminutes\September 9,2009.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 7 Minutes of September 9,2009