Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2015-07-06 APPROVED ilt CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO rj imam. `� Development Review Commission Minutes July 6, 2015 Chair Ahrend called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 A Avenue. Members present: Chair Brent Ahrend, Vice Chair David Poulson, Kelly Melendez, Paden Prichard, Kirk Smith, Jeff Shearer and David Rabbino. Staff present: Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Assistant City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support ELECTIONS Ms. Melendez nominated Brent Ahrend for another term as chair. Mr. Poulson seconded the nomination and Chair Ahrend was re-elected 7:0. Mr. Prichard nominated David Poulson for another term as vice chair. Mr. Smith seconded and Vice Chair Poulson was re-elected 7:0. MINUTES None. FINDINGS LU 15-0029: A request by Oswego Lake Country Club for approval to modify the Country Club's conditional use permit in order to remove an approximately 2-acre portion of land from the Club's property and a 2-parcel minor land partition. Location of Property: 20 Iron Mt. Blvd (Tax Lots 100 & 160 of Tax Map 2S1 E04 and Tax Lot 300 of Tax Map 21 E04DB). Mr. Pritchard moved to approve LU 15-0029-1870 Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr. Rabbino seconded the motion and it passed 6:0:1. Mr. Shearer abstained. Mr. Poulson, who had been absent when they voted on the tentative decision, confirmed that he had reviewed the record. PUBLIC HEARINGS LU 15-0030: A request by West Coast Self Storage for approval of a lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 300 and 400, and modifications to approved Conditional Use and Development Review Permits (LU 14-0006) in order to construct an additional 3-story self-storage facility on the adjusted Tax Lot 400. Location of Property: 5600 & 5650 Rosewood Street (Tax Lot s 300 and 400 of Tax Map 21E 18BD). The staff coordinator is Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner. Mr. Ahrend opened the hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria and procedure. At time of declarations each Commissioner declared his/her business/employment. Mr. Pritchard, Ms. Melendez and Mr. Ahrend each reported making a site visit. Mr. Shearer related a business relationship with the applicants' architect. No one challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Staff Report Staff had distributed the June 26, 2015 Staff Report and July 6, 2015 Staff Memorandum. Ms. Hamilton pointed out how the lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 300 and 400 meant the rear City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 6, 2015 Page 1 of 5 APPROVED portion of Tax Lot 300 (5600 Rosewood Street) would be used to enlarge Tax Lot 400 (5650 Rosewood Street). Access would be shared using the existing driveway from Rosewood Street. She discussed how the specific standards for self-storage facilities were met and how the general CUP standards either were or could be met through the recommended conditions of approval listed in the Staff Memorandum. Staff recommended approval subject to those conditions. Questions of Staff The Commissioners had a number of questions regarding staff-recommended condition D(8), which called for the owner of expanded Tax Lot 400 to participate in (per a covenant secured by a lien on Tax Lot 400) required future street improvements along Tax Lot 300's Rosewood Street frontage at the time the front portion of Tax Lot 300 was developed. The amount was to be determined by apportionment of the costs between Tax Lots 300 and 400 based on their developments' respective impacts on the street system. Staff was asked why the City was not requiring dedication of right-of-way on Boones Ferry Road (so it could be widened in the future). They advised the impact was on Rosewood; during the previous approval process the City had determined that no additional dedication of right-of-way on Boones Ferry Road was necessary and the City had even vacated a portion of that right-of-way, anticipating that Rosewood would connect with Boones Ferry Road at a different (right) angle; and, City plans did not indicate any future widening of that part of Boones Ferry Road. Staff clarified that at this point they were just asking for dedication of right-of-way on Rosewood. Even though the current development proposal generated trips on the system it was not enough to justify requiring the applicant to make the full street improvement now. Recommended condition D(8) would ensure that full right-of-way improvements in front of Tax Lot 300 would be made at the time of ultimate buildout of the land in that lot, no matter how many more times it was divided. The risk of not having the condition was that Tax Lot 300 might be further divided for developments and the impacts of the developments might not be enough to warrant enough exaction to make the full street improvement. Having condition D(8) meant each of those developments would pay their proportionate share of the cost of full street improvement. Applicant Lans Stout. 3383 SW Firdale Rd.. Cornelius. Oregon (97113) and Steve Tananev, Vice President, West Coast Self Storage, 39 Castledown Rd., Pleasanton, California (94566) testified on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Stout indicated the applicant had no problem with the recommended conditions of approval with the exception of the condition that required the covenant. They asked the Commission to delete it. He explained that the applicant did not think it was necessary to spend the money to create a covenant. They thought that if the currently-proposed expansion building had been processed with the previously-approved building the frontage requirements would be no different than what had been approved then. The expansion building generated a miniscule number of trips overall (he recalled it was about five trips) and had a small impact on the street system. The City had the ability to condition future development on the street to improve the frontage. The applicant's representatives clarified that the applicant had no problem with dedicating the right- of-way now as a function of the lot line adjustment, but creating the covenant for future work would be costly and the associated lien could create an issue with the title/deed if the applicant wanted to get a loan on the property or sell it. Questions of Applicant When asked to compare the value of the dedicated right-of-way with the value of the frontage improvements, the applicant's representatives estimated the value of the land dedicated was $36,000 and frontage improvements would be roughly between $40,000 and $50,000 for a sidewalk and a new curb-cut driveway. They discussed that the covenant just gave a potential City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 6, 2015 Page 2 of 5 APPROVED buyer an additional guarantee that the applicant was going to pay some part of the cost. They noted that was not the City's issue. If the covenant was not in place the applicant could negotiate with the future buyer of 5600 Rosewood Street what share of the frontage improvement each party would pay when they negotiated the land deal. Mr. Boone discussed that the applicant assumed that a development on the remainder of Tax Lot 300 by a future buyer was going to create enough proportionality to take care of the street improvements. The City did not know whether it would. Staff was recommending a process to defer the cost and still ensure that the developments that generated traffic that required street improvements paid it at the time the improvements were made. Without the covenant the applicant might argue sometime in the future that their development did not have enough impact. Mr. Boone was asked if the City should make the applicant make the improvements now if they were not willing to provide a covenant. He indicated the currently-proposed development on the back portion of Tax Lot 300 might not meet rough proportionality test for that. The City did not know what was going to be on the remaining, larger, undeveloped, front, portion of Tax Lot 300 and the City did not have conditioning authority with regard to it. He suggested an alternative that if the applicant owned all of Tax Lot 300 they could sign a statement (a covenant) that they would pay for all of the street improvements that were an obligation of the undeveloped remainder portion of Tax Lot 300 when it developed. Mr. Stout indicated that Mr. Boone's suggested alternative to the covenant described in the staff- recommended condition made sense and would work for the applicant. They would have no problem creating a covenant to apply to the undeveloped residual portion of 5600 Rosewood Street making that property fully responsible for the full development of its Rosewood frontage at the time it was redeveloped. It was a solution to the problem and would simplify things. They clarified that West Coast Storage did not currently own 5600 Rosewood Street but they had a contract to purchase the property and the transaction was going to close before the lot line adjustment occurred. Public Testimony None. Deliberations The applicant waived their right to keep the record open in order to submit a final written argument. Chair Ahrend opened deliberations. Mr. Boone advised if the Commissioners wanted to give the applicant the ability to choose the alternative to recommended Condition D(8) the alternative condition should clarify that the City's lien had first priority and all other liens/mortgages were to be subordinate. Mr. Rabbino indicated the alternative was a clean fix and it made sense. He would give the applicant a choice of the alternative or the staff-recommended condition. Either way the City was protected and assured that the frontage improvements would get done. Mr. Prichard pointed out that recommended Condition B(3) called for dedication of right-of-way to happen prior to approval of the final lot line adjustment plan. Mr. Ahrend recalled the applicant had discussed the value of the dedication and the cost of frontage improvements. The ratio was about 50:50. He noted the language of staff-recommended condition D(8) meant that even if the proposed development did not generate sufficient trips to require frontage improvements, the applicant would have to participate in paying for frontage improvements along 5600 Rosemont Street. The owner would have to participate, for example, even if they just repurposed the existing building. Ms. Melendez anticipated a potential buyer/developer would factor that into their cost analysis. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 6, 2015 Page 3 of 5 APPROVED Mr. Boone discussed that a condition that only imposed the obligation for a covenant and the related lien on the undeveloped remainder portion of 5600 Rosemont Street could be subject to challenge because development was currently only proposed on the 5650 Rosemont Road property (as adjusted). He advised that staff-recommended condition D(8) could defer and allocate the cost between the two properties because both owners were party to the proposed lot line adjustment. In order to proceed after approval they would either have to comply with D(8) as written or comply with the alternative. The alternative was possible if the abutting property owner viewed it as being in their best interest. Mr. Shearer asked if it would have cost the applicant less if they had incorporated their current proposal into the previously-approved application. Ms. Hamilton advised the additional area of the adjusted lot would have been factored into the amount of exaction the City asked for and they would have asked the expanded portion of the development to contribute to the improvement of the frontage of 5600 Rosemont Street. Mr. Boone confirmed that if the applicant had only asked for a lot line adjustment and not proposed a development, the City could have required right-of-way dedication but they could not have required a condition like D(8). It was the change of use that created the impacts on the system that would need to be offset. Mr. Ahrend observed that the City was requiring someone to pay for frontage improvements along someone else's parcel. Mr. Boone confirmed the City did require projects to build street improvements along someone else's frontage. For example, they required applicants to install sidewalks on the other side of the street from their site to encourage pedestrian use to mitigate for the additional traffic generated by the new development. He confirmed there had to be nexus and proportionality for the exaction. Mr. Ahrend noted a safety issue that the road was not improved along that frontage. Mr. Rabbino discussed that the staff-recommended condition was postponing the determination of impacts to a later time. They did not know what level of development would happen on the 5600 Rosemont Street property. In theory the condition was allowing a delay until a bigger project came along. Then they would calculate the proportional impacts of the developments. The City was getting some assurance in exchange for the approval that the City would not end up not having enough for full street improvement. However, the applicant could take the matter to arbitration and might end up not having to do anything. He suggested if the applicant was buying the 5600 Rosemont Road property it was an easy fix to burden that property with the obligation to make the frontage improvements. Mr. Poulson discussed the practical perspective that the applicant was currently installing a sidewalk along 5650 Rosemont Street and should be required to connect to it and continue it along 5600 Rosemont Street as well based on approval of the lot line adjustment. Mr. Boone advised the requirement to dedicate right-of-way was related to the lot line adjustment and the City did not have conditioning authority on the front portion 5600 Rosemont Street, where nothing was proposed. Mr. Shearer inquired why staff had not asked the applicant to do the frontage improvements now, since the applicant would own both lots. Mr. Boone suggested they ask the applicant if they were prepared to do that. Staff had thought there was an issue of proportionality because the number of trips that would be generated by the proposed development on the rear portion of 5600 Rosemont Street was not sufficient to require that. Staff then announced and distributed a submittal the applicant had just handed them suggesting wording for the new alternative condition of approval that would be an alternative to D(8). Staff made some technical changes to the language and then read it out loud. Alternatively, the owner of adjusted Tax Lot 400 may provide a covenant to apply to the adjusted portion of Tax Lot 300 which ensures that any future development of adjusted City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 6, 2015 Page 4 of 5 APPROVED Tax Lot 300 will include the then-required full frontage improvements of adjusted Tax Lot 300 on Rosewood Street. Mr. Boone advised that the language should clarify that the City had a first priority position. Mr. Pishvaie discussed why the new alternative condition and condition D(8) should be consolidated, moved and renumbered B(4) so the condition was in sequence with required actions related to the lot line adjustment. That meant that even if the applicant only purchased the rear portion of Tax Lot 300 and not the entire lot the covenant obligated Tax Lot 300 to participate in future street improvements. The applicant's representatives confirmed the applicant agreed to the changed conditions. Ms. Melendez moved to approve LU 15-0030 subject to the conditions listed in the July 6, 2015 Staff Memorandum as revised during deliberations: Renumber Condition D(8) to B(4) and add to it that as an alternative the owners could provide a first priority covenant to apply to the adjusted portion of Tax Lot 300 which ensured that any future development of adjusted Tax Lot 300 would include the then-required full frontage improvements of the adjusted Tax Lot 300 on SW Rosewood Street. Mr. Rabbino seconded the motion and it passed 6:1 with Mr. Ahrend voting no. The vote on the findings, conclusions and order was scheduled on July 20, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. * * * * * TR 499-15-01900 [AP 15-04]: A request for a hearing on a Type II tree removal application by Scott Davis to remove seven trees in order to construct a new driveway and an addition to an existing single-family dwelling. Location of Property: 1415 Chandler Road (Tax Lot 2300 of Tax Map 21E 03CC). This appeal had been withdrawn. * * * * * AP 15-03 [LU 15-0013]: An appeal and request for a public hearing of the staff decision to approve a request by Timberland Homes, Inc., for a minor partition to divide the site into two parcels and the removal of two trees. Location of Property: 16044 Inverurie Road (Tax Lot 2501 of Tax Map 21 E 07DB). This appeal had been withdrawn. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, Mr. Ahrend adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Reynolds /s/ Janice Reynolds Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 6, 2015 Page 5 of 5