Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2014-01-15 proued 0 1---- I CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO woolyDevelopment Review Commission Minutes January 15, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Don Richards called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 A Avenue. ROLL CALL Members present: Chair Don Richards, Vice Chair Gregg Creighton, Ann Johnson, Bob Needham and David Poulson. Brent Ahrend and Frank Rossi were not present. Staff present: Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner; Jessica Numanoglu, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support MINUTES None. FINDINGS None. PUBLIC HEARING LU 13-0040: An appeal of the staff decision to approve the applicant's request for exceptions to the R-7.5 zone requirements, listed below, through the Residential Infill Design Review (RID) process. The applicant is requesting the following exceptions in order to construct a new single family dwelling: • Reduce the required 30-foot rear yard setback to 25 feet, and; • Increase the maximum allowed lot coverage for a structure greater than 31 feet in height from 25% to 33%. The applicant is also requesting to remove three trees in order to construct the dwelling. The site is located at: 16645 Graef Circle (Tax Lot 7107 of Tax Map 2 1 E 08CC). Chair Richards opened the public hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria and procedure. Ms. Johnson (retired housing manager) and Vice Chair Creighton (licensed architect) each reported a site visit. The other Commissioners each declared his/her occupation/employment: Mr. Needham (retired lawyer); Mr. Poulson (civil engineer) and Chair Richards (landscape architect/certified arborist). Staff Report Ms. Hamilton reported that several comments had been received after the preliminary staff approval of the application was mailed: two in support and seven in opposition. The December 11, 2013 Staff Report addressed those comments and recommended approval of the application. Neighbors to the north of the site had then appealed the staff decision. She clarified that the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 1 of 22 applicants were not asking for any exceptions to the side yard setback plane and that the standard was met. They were asking for exceptions that would allow increased lot coverage, a reduced rear yard setback, and to remove three trees for development purposes. She reported the subject lot had been a platted lot of record for 90 years. It had remained vacant because it had been developed together with the abutting lot to the north at 6621 Graef Circle. The two lots had been reestablished as individual lots in 2013. The appellants owned the abutting lot to the north. The existing boathouse was on the applicants' property and was to remain. The property was zoned R- 7.5. Graef Circle was a one-way loop street off South Shore Boulevard. Staff pointed out the proposed setbacks on the site plan. The applicant proposed combined side setbacks of 15 feet (a 5-foot north setback and a 10-foot south setback). They asked for a 5-foot reduction in the required 30-foot rear setback. The dwelling met the required 25-foot Oswego Lake setback. At 16.25 feet, the structure met the front setback because the Code allowed an averaged setback when an abutting property had a nonconforming setback. The dwelling to the north had a front yard setback that had been allowed to be reduced from nine feet to six feet in a RID process. She related that the appellants had submitted Exhibit G-208 that day. It identified their specific concerns, which touched on tree removal, views, and privacy concerns. Ms. Hamilton pointed out the December 11 staff report addressed several concerns. There had been concern that the proposed dwelling did not fit neighborhood character because the lot was a little over 4,400 s.f. Staff found that 10 of the 17 lots on Graef Circle were substandard size. They had been platted that way in the 1920s. There was concern that the proposal would increase lot coverage from 25% to 30%. Staff had used an aerial photograph to roughly calculate the lot coverage of properties in the area and found they ranged between 30% and 42%. There was concern about reduction of setbacks. Staff had found that all except one of the lots around Graef Circle were nonconforming to at least one of the setback standards. Staff had looked at the photographs showing the character of the street. The analysis showed a tight development pattern and tight parking. There were many buildings with very minimal front and side yard setbacks. The property to the north had a 6-foot front setback. The dwellings on Graef Circle were a mix of one-, two-, and three-story homes. At least four of them had two levels at the street and three levels on the lake side, as was proposed by the applicant. Comments had been received about tree removal. Three Oregon white oak trees were located 12-15 feet from the front property line. Staff acknowledged there would be a significant negative impact to the character of the street with the trees removed. However, no reasonable alternative site plan exists that would still allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Even if the proposed development needed no exceptions because it met the required rear yard setback and lot coverage, and even if the building footprint was flipped to place the two-car garage and its access on the south instead of the north side of the site, the footprint would be in the protection root zone and would impact the trees. Staff referred to graphic illustrations in the staff report to discuss privacy concerns. She noted the proposed dwelling was shallower than the Johnson dwelling to the north. The Johnson property had a nonconforming side setback ranging from two feet to about 2.5 feet along the shared property line (where the required zone setback was five feet). She pointed out the lack of windows in the exception area of the proposed building that faced the house to the north. There were some windows off the deck that were about 23 feet away and not on the property line. There were no direct views from the deck to the Johnson windows. She pointed out the existing boathouse was already in the view corridor from the neighbors' window. Staff recommended approval subject to the recommended revised conditions of approval in the staff report. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 2 of 22 Questions of Staff During the questioning period, Ms. Hamilton clarified that a Type II tree removal request was incorporated into the application and the health of the trees proposed to be removed was not a factor because the basis of the tree removal request was removal for development purposes. She confirmed that the two lots had been legally platted and there had been no lot line adjustments. The two lots had been developed together and the subject lot had never been built on. The boathouse had originally been used for the Johnson property, but now it would be the boathouse for the subject property. Applicant Damien Hall, Ball Janik LLP, 101 SW Main St., Ste. 1100, Portland, Oregon 97204; Richard Givens, Planning Consultant, 18680 Sunblaze Dr., Oregon City, Oregon 97045; and Mitch Imlay, End Point Design, 4036 NE Sandy Blvd., Portland, OR 97212, project designer, represented the applicants. Mr. Hall submitted a simplified site plan to respond to issues raised by neighbors (Exhibit E-10). It showed the required and proposed rear setback lines; the side setback lines; the averaged front yard setback line; and the location of the tree canopy. He advised the exceptions fell under RID standards that applied to structure size, not the standards related to the relationships to the street and to the neighbors. The applicant agreed with staff that there was no alternative to removing the oak trees on the street side which were actually one tree with three trunks. He indicated that the applicant was amenable to mitigate as though it was three trees. Mr. Imlay addressed consistency with neighborhood character. He noted the site was an undersized lot. He explained that the applicant had tried to achieve a design within the required setbacks. However, the only feasible way to have a two-car garage, great room, kitchen, and dining area, was to reduce the setback in back and ask for RID exceptions. He noted the design set back the upper level to reduce the impact on the street and the neighbors. It reduced the view corridors from inside the house to the neighboring properties. Most of the views were out the back toward the lake or out the front to the street. The plan enabled them to have a two-car garage and two extra parking spaces in front of the garage because there was limited parking on the street. He advised the design provided adequate room sizes, but it was not overly large. He could not see any way to get it any smaller and have adequate room sizes. Mr. Givens submitted aerial photographs to demonstrate neighborhood character (Exhibit E-11). He noted the purpose of the RID process was to allow for flexibility in situations like this, where the lots had been platted before there were zoning standards. He pointed out the neighborhood was primarily two story homes, similar to what the applicant proposed. The one that was different was the single level home immediately south of the site on Tax Lot 7300 on a property that was about a lot and a third and was not typical of other lots in the neighborhood. He indicated that the effect of adjusting the rear yard setback to 25 feet would not be as perceivable as it would on a typical lot because the perceived rear yard area included the 25-foot lake setback as well. He referred to the site plan in Exhibit E-4. He pointed out that the rear setback line was angled so that setback would be 25 feet up to 28 feet. He indicated the applicant was asking for adjustments in areas that did not impact the view of the house from any properties except perhaps those that were across the lake. From there it would look like a 50 to 60-foot setback from the lake. He referred to the Oblique Aerial View Photograph (Exhibit E-11). He said the proposed house was in keeping with what was typical in that area. They believed it made more sense to build something that was in character with the area using minor adjustments to the rear yard and to lot coverage than to put something in there that was smaller and otherwise not in character with the typical homes found in that area. He noted the tree with three trunks was located very close to the front setback. There was no way to build a home on this constrained property without damaging the roots so it had to be removed. Flipping the garage around would still impact them. The applicant would prefer to City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 3 of 22 maintain trees wherever possible, but there was no alternative plan that would allow them to keep them. Questions of applicant During the questioning period, Ms. Hamilton pointed out Exhibit E-4 showed there were vision clearance triangles on the sides of the driveways. Mr. Imlay clarified the depth of the window wells varied to a maximum of three feet. Ms. Hamilton clarified the lot had been platted in 1923; it had always been a separate lot; and a house had never been built on it. Mr. Hall indicated this was the exact scenario the RID process had been created to address. They were pre-existing lots that were much smaller than the R-7.5 zoning contemplated. He pointed out the appellant neighbors had built almost up to the property line. The applicant proposed a multi-story home with a two-car garage that would be similar to other homes on Graef Circle shown in the photographs. Many of those structures, including the adjacent property, were nonconforming to R-7.5 setbacks. He recalled some opponents claimed that the lot was being overbuilt and that what was proposed was much larger than what was allowed under the Code or what was already built on the street. He noted the applicant was proposing footprint and floor areas that were much smaller than what could be on a 7,500 s.f., R-7.5, lot. He said the bottom line was that either way one approached determining neighborhood character- whether it was based on the existing built environment or on the conditions anticipated by the Code - the proposal was consistent with the character of the neighborhood and it improved upon the house that would be allowed under the zoning standards. Mr. Needham posed questions related to whether the applicant was asking to be allowed to encroach into setbacks in order to fit a certain size house they needed or wanted, with a two-car garage; and, if they would still argue that same size house should be allowed on the lot because of the nature of the neighborhood if it was an even more substandard lot—1,000 s.f. smaller, for example. Mr. Hall responded that the applicant proposed a design that complied with three of the four setback standards (for front and side yards). In this instance the rear yard abutted Lake Corporation property so the impact of the requested 5-foot reduction did not actually impact a neighborhood behind the property. If the 4,400 s.f. lot was 1,000 s.f. smaller the question would be how many of the R-7.5 setback standards could they comply with and have the same building shape and footprint. It was likely the proposal would have to be modified because the home would be very shallow and a lot smaller. It would be inconsistent with neighborhood character and also not particularly marketable. Mr. Needham explained the burden was on the applicant to show that the proposed development was equal to or better than a development that would be allowed under the clear and objective standards of the Code. He indicated that he was not yet persuaded. Mr. Hall explained that if they complied with the 30' rear setback requirement that would remove approximately 200 s.f. from the home and the applicant would still be asking for an exemption to the lot coverage requirement. He reasoned that the Code anticipated a percentage of lot coverage on a certain size lot which was R- 7.5 minimum lot size. The applicant had a significantly smaller lot and was requesting an increase in lot coverage, not to what would be anticipated in an R-7.5 district, but to what would be consistent with the neighborhood and was as constrained within the setbacks as possible. He noted the surrounding houses featured multi-car garages and the street was impacted for parking. Mr. Needham observed that might be an argument for a smaller house because the last thing one wanted on a narrow street with no parking was big houses with many cars. Mr. Hall replied they would want off-street parking. He noted the plan described a `great room', but it was not in addition to a living room space. He noted the staff report indicated there were 17 residences on Graef Circle that generated under 200 trips per day. The number of trips would remain under 200 even with the proposed home. It would not have a significant impact on how the street performed. He anticipated that even if the house was smaller because it did not have a two-car garage the family would still have cars and generate a similar amount of trips. He was not aware of any bus stop City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 4 of 22 near Graef Circle. He noted what was proposed was consistent with the character of the neighborhood, which had other houses with two-car garages. Mr. Givens noted the intent of the RID process was to allow flexibility when the standards for 7,500 s.f. lots did not work well on smaller infill lots. He advised that if the lot was 1,000 s.f. smaller it would be a judgment call where to reduce the house, but the Code allowed the City to consider whether the proposed development was equal to or better than what the clear and objective standards of the code would allow. RID process called for considering the dwelling size, relationship to the street, and relationship to neighbors. In this case, the dwelling size was compatible to or smaller than most of the homes in the neighborhood. The intent was to develop a cohesive neighborhood that did not have homes considerably out of character in size and value to existing. He said the application complied with the standard about relationship to the street. In regard to relationship to neighbors they were asking for an adjustment on the rear of the property but they met the required setback on the sides where they had abutting neighbors. Having the lake behind softened the impact the reduction of the rear setback and the increase of lot coverage would otherwise have. The overall effect of looking at the development would be that it had more space around it than if the reductions were on a standard sized lot. That made this a special circumstance. He said the applicant proposed a house plan that was consistent with the character of the neighborhood and with typical current living standards. Mr. Needham observed the applicant had seen the neighborhood and bought a lot that was very small. He indicated that there was latitude under the RID process, but that did not mean the Commission could just approve anything that the applicant thought was a nice house to build. Mr. Givens clarified they were saying there were unique characteristics of this property that would allow the Commission to find the development was consistent with or superior to what one would typically find in an R-7.5 zoned neighborhood of 7,500 s.f. lots. There was more land (the lake) behind it, so it had a totally different impact. He stressed this was a unique circumstance, which was what the RID process was for. Proponents / Neither for nor Against None. Opponents Dan Johnson, 7720 SW Macadam Ave. #10, Portland, Oregon, 97219, owner of 16621 Graef Circle had submitted Exhibit G-208. He related that he and Elizabeth Bounds had purchased the adjacent 1937 cottage to renovate for their home. He indicated that his argument was that staff might not have had complete information at the time of staff approval because the September 16 application did not have a lot of information. He discussed some of the staff responses, as follows: There was a staff response that the proposed dwelling would not block windows on the Johnson dwelling to the north any more than a dwelling that met the rear setback of 30 feet. Another staff response was that Exhibit E-4 showed that the westernmost edge of the proposed dwelling was two feet beyond the edge of the Johnson dwelling, therefore, lake views from the rear of the Johnson dwelling would not be affected. Mr. Johnson indicated they were talking about his living room, where he had a big picture window which had been there since 1937. He had submitted pictures to show the Commission the true impact (see Exhibit G-208). The photographs were taken from inside his home through the window, showing them holding a plastic sheet at points that were the 25-foot and 30-foot setback marks. He pointed out that from deep in the living room there would be no view and three windows on the side of his house would be blocked by the proposed house. He related that when they purchased their property they realized there would be a 30' setback and decided that was reasonable because they would have a small view. However, a 25' setback would block too much of the view. He asked the Commission to require the 30' setback. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 5 of 22 The applicant could still have a marketable house and a building that fit the neighborhood if they reduced the floor plan by five feet; and, he would have a view. Mr. Johnson noted staff reported that removal of the trees in front would not have a significant impact on the protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks because the trees were separated far enough from other trees that they did not provide a windbreak. He related that he had once considered removing an old white oak on his property that was contiguous with others in the neighborhood, but had decided not to after the City required a study related to the tree's significance and which showed that removal would not impact the rest of the grove. He held that the applicant should be required to provide such a study so the real impacts of their tree removal were known. He anticipated that the applicant could build a house that was 300 s.f. smaller. The builder could alter the floor plan to something that would sell.. He concluded by saying that the proposal did not meet the standards. Questions During the questioning period, it was clarified that Mr. Johnson's house was on adjacent property to the north of the applicant's property. His picture window would look right at the side of the proposed house. Mr. Johnson related they had been granted an exception when they rebuilt their garage. They had been required to enhance its façade by adding windows that served no purpose and no one would ever see, but they did it to meet the standard that it was something better than what could normally have been built there. They wanted the applicant to follow the same standards. He clarified they had owned their property since April or May. When asked if he could have purchased the subject lot as well, he explained there was a sale pending at the time. Mary Shilling. 4144 South Shore. (TL 8400) stated that she and her husband lived in the designated historical McCall House on Graef Circle. Graef Circle had been developed between 1925 through 1940 as vacation cottages for Portlanders. A few more houses were added in the 1950s. Her house was two stories with a little less than 1,200 s.f. She indicated the character of the neighborhood was generally older homes, lots of trees, and views of West Bay and Oswego Lake. The exception was one house that had replaced a house about seven years ago. It was not dissimilar to the proposed house. It had a kind of jarring quality because it was so out of character with the rest of the houses. She indicated Graef Circle probably did not merit historical designation beyond her house, but the City had gone to great effort to recognize the historical significance of some neighborhoods. She asked the Commission to consider the specific, unique, cottage culture of Graef Circle when they made the decision. Bruce Henderson, 4212 South Shore Blvd., clarified he lived two lots away from the site. He opined that the intent of the people who developed the cottage in the 1940s and utilized both lots would have been to keep the lots together. He related that the Johnsons had purchased the original cottage. Their house existed two feet from the common property line with the subject site. The boathouse was on the subject site, was a very small lot. He said he did not believe when the City developed the infill code they were thinking "shoehorn." The problem was simply that the applicant proposed to jam too large of a footprint into too small of an infill lot. He suggested they would not need to ask for any exceptions if it had a smaller, more cottage-like, footprint. He said the three trees proposed for removal were part of a contiguous, mature, canopy. Mr. Johnson had to meet very strict criteria on how to deal with the Oregon Oaks on his property. Mr. Henderson had them on his property as well. Staff had talked about them when he talked to them about possibly developing a grandmother's cottage. He advised that there was no reason for the applicant's trees to be removed if they designed and developed a smaller footprint. He indicated he understood this was not going to be an owner occupied home but a spec home to be marketed. That was why the applicant wanted as much square footage as possible. It affected the wooded nature of the canopy, the neighbors' solar access and view, and aesthetics. He indicated he did City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 6 of 22 not agree that the shoehorned-in footprint improved the character or scale of the neighborhood. He noted it was adjacent to a cottage and there were other cottages on the street. There were other homes on the street that had no garages or one garage. He concluded that the fact that a standard allowed a maximum of a certain square footage did not necessarily mean it would fit on this property. He predicted that the Commission would not hear any resident of the neighborhood support the application. Questions During the questioning period, Mr. Henderson related his profession was environmental design/build, restoring streams, rivers, and wetlands. He lived at 4212 South Shore Boulevard, where he had three lots with a combined area of about 30,000 s.f. Each lot was in the 5,000 to 7,500 s.f. range. His residence was the original footprint. When they developed their home 15 years ago they only took one limb off their oak trees. Rebuttal Mr. Hall addressed issues raised by opponents. Mr. Johnson had indicated the City did not have sufficient information to make a decision. Mr. Hall noted state law required the City to make a completeness review and staff had done that; and, the applicant was present at the hearing to provide any information the Commission requested or needed. He addressed the three categories of RID criteria, saying that structure size was the one that was applicable here. Relationship to street was not applicable because they were not asking for any exceptions to any of the street relation criteria. Relationship to neighbors was not applicable because they were not requesting exceptions to the side yard setback or the side wall elevation. Mr. Needham observed that they were asking for exceptions to the rear setback, which had a direct impact on the adjacent neighbor's property. Mr. Hall responded they were asking for an exception to the rear yard setback which fell under structure size and was about distance and visibility from street and adjoining properties. Mr. Needham noted they had seen pictures taken from the adjoining property. Mr. Hall clarified that they were evaluating whether or not the proposal created a positive relationship between the size of the proposed dwelling and the character of the neighborhood and whether the proposed design offered features that diminished the perceived scale and size. Mr. Needham indicated that he had not heard a lot that night about how the design made the size of the structure more compatible with, for example, the cottage design of the adjacent property. He had not been presented with things like elevations or architectural tools. Mr. Hall recalled they had heard about an alleged cottage community. He asked the Commissioners to look at the pictures of all the homes on Graef Circle and consider whether they were all cottages. He noted the proposed home was two stories at the street like other homes in the neighborhood. It was 2,200 s.f., but it had a daylight basement which was invisible from the street. It was not a large home or something that would tower over the existing built character of the neighborhood. They were proposing something very consistent with the homes that were being called `cottages.' Vice Chair Creighton asked how many of the photographs showed single-car garages and how many showed two-car garages. The photographs he saw indicated to him that probably 20% of them showed no garage or a single car garage. Mr. Hall indicated he did not know. He asked the Commission to keep the record open for at least seven days so the applicant had additional time to respond to the evidence brought forward by opponents of the project. Mr. Hall recalled that Mr. Johnson's main issue was that a portion of the new home would block his view looking south to a finger of the lake from a vantage point in the living room. Mr. Hall questioned whether that was associated with the criteria. He noted the staff report talked about the design features that had been used to make the house visibly appealing and not monolithic as far as breaking up the side of the home with windows and different siding and shingle treatments for City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 7 of 22 the top and bottom stories. However, when it came to where the back of the residence was going to be located there was really only so much the applicant could do because a wall was going to be a wall. At some point there would be an impact to Mr. Johnson's view looking south. The applicant proposed that point be consistent with the setback from Oswego Lake and consistent with what their design professionals told them was needed to have the reasonable and likely expected rooms in a home. It was not a home that was inconsistent with the built pattern of the neighborhood. They thought it was more consistent with those homes as proposed than without a garage or with a one-car garage, or without some other room, such as a dining room. Mr. Hall asked the Commission to consider where Mr. Johnson's photographs were taken from. They were pictures of a window that was two feet away from the property line because his property was a nonconforming property. He said the subject lot was a lot of record and the applicant had the right to build on it. They were complying with the side yard setbacks. He held the view from Mr. Johnson's property was not approval criteria. The intent of RID was to address issues of nonconformity. The applicant had done that by making the proposed design consistent with the side yard setbacks and not putting it any closer to the already nonconforming adjacent structure. Mr. Hall said he would not debate whether or not the neighborhood was cottages. He held the proposal was consistent with the neighborhood. He recalled Mr. Henderson had mentioned the site was a small lot. He noted staff reported that the vast majority of lots on Graef Circle were nonconforming lots. Staff had also reported that there were no adjacent trees, so wind shear was not a factor. He addressed tree removal criteria and stated that there was really no place to site the house without taking out the tree. Chair Richards asked staff if the Code set a maximum variance for the rear setback. Ms. Hamilton advised the RID process did not. He recalled the applicant had requested a continuance. Vice Chair Creighton asked the applicant to provide an exhibit showing how the roofline as well as the footprint at the corner would relate to the picture window, roofline and footprint of the dwelling to the north. Mr. Poulson asked for a staff-validated exhibit accurately demonstrating what the view from Mr. Johnson's picture window would look like. It was a significant issue because Mr. Johnson's photographs made it appear that a 25' rear setback would completely block that picture window, and a 30' setback would let them have some view. Mr. Needham indicated he believed Mr. Johnson's testimony was sufficient to establish that. He commented that it was no surprise that anyone with a view of the lake would not want it blocked. Vice Chair Creighton asked staff how a neighborhood with such a high degree of nonconformance could be zoned R-7.5. Ms. Hamilton advised it had been platted and developed before there were zoning codes. Mr. Needham moved to continue LU 13-0040 to 7:00 D.M. on February 3, 2014 and keep the record open for written testimony only. Additional written testimony was to be submitted by 5:00 p.m. January 22, 2104; and written rebuttal was to be submitted by 5:00 p.m. January 27, 2014. Mr. Poulson seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. The Commission recessed for five minutes and then reconvened for the next hearing. * * * * * LU 13-0025: An appeal of the staff decision to approve the applicant's request for exceptions to the R-7.5 zone requirements, listed below, through the Residential Infill Design Review (RID) process. The applicant is requesting the following exceptions in order to construct additions to the existing single-family dwelling and to raise the roof of the existing detached carport: • Reduce the side yard setback for the detached carport from 10 feet to zero; • Reduce the rear yard setback for the dwelling from 30 feet to 9'-9"; • Reduce the Oswego Lake setback for the dwelling from 25 feet to 9'-9"; • Reduce the combined 15-foot side yard setback for the dwelling to 11'-10"; and, City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 8 of 22 • Increase the maximum lot coverage from 25% to 47.8%. The site is located at: 1227 Lake Front Road (Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map 2 1 E 10CA). The staff coordinator is Jessica Numanoglu, Senior Planner. Mr. Pishvaie reported the applicant had requested a continuance. Vice Chair Creighton moved to continue LU 13-0025 to February 19, 2014. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. * * * * * LU 13-0042: The applicant is requesting approval of a Modification to DR 8-75 and DR 33-76 for an exterior remodel of all the buildings on the site. This is a reopened public hearing to review a substantially revised application submitted by the applicant. The site is located at: 215 Oswego Summit (including Buildings 1-25), Tax Lot 90000 of Tax Map 1S 1E 32CD. Chair Richards opened the public hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria and procedure. Ms. Johnson (retired housing manager), Mr. Poulson (civil engineer), Vice Chair Creighton (licensed architect) and Chair Richards (landscape architect/certified arborist) each reported her/his occupation/employment and a site visit. Mr. Needham (retired lawyer) related that he had not been present at the previous hearing. No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Staff Report Ms. Numanoglu explained that the hearing had been reopened because after the Commission tentatively voted to deny the application on November 18, 2013, the applicant had submitted a revised design. The site consisted of 25 condominium buildings in Mountain Park which had been built in the 1970s. They were different styles, categorized as Types 1, 2A, 2B, and 3. Type 1 was a rectangular shaped building with projecting balconies. The other types were cascading buildings. All of the buildings were four-story buildings and they were all tied together by the same siding, windows and roof materials. She recalled the previous denial focused on two design criteria that called for the proposed design to be complementary to buildings in the vicinity with good design; and that features such as deck railings were to be complementary to the building they were on. At the previous hearing, the Commission had voted to tentatively deny the application because what was proposed would significantly reduce the design diversity of the neighborhood and detract from the overall visual universe. They had found the remodel should better preserve the uniqueness of the existing design in order to be complementary to adjacent structures. Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised design that included a preferred alternative and other options. They still proposed to replace the existing cedar shingles with Hardi plank horizontal lap siding, but they added some Hardi plank shingle accents. Their preferred roofing option was Certainteed Presidential Series composition shingles in Aged Bark color. She noted this was a thicker grade shingle than what they had previously proposed. They now proposed to use light taupe color vinyl windows. They proposed to replace all deck railings, including those on the cascading buildings, with a tinted glass metal railing system. She pointed out they had provided samples of the proposed materials and colors. They had removed the red barn color from the color palette so that it was now more of a neutral, muted-tone, color palette. The applicant no longer proposed to remove any windows. They had provided comparison pictures of the existing buildings and the buildings with the proposed preferred option materials. They still proposed to remove the roofed deck railings on the cascading building type and replace them with glass railings. The material options included Monaco roof tiles that mimicked a terra cotta tile roof; metal railings; and maintaining the existing roof railings. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 9 of 22 Ms. Numanoglu reported that staff found that the preferred option (Certainteed composition roofing, with glass railings on all building types and removal of the roofed deck railings) did not retain the uniqueness of the existing design. They found the roof railing was an integral part of the design of cascading building type. What the applicant proposed would result in an odd assortment of roofing strips on the facade. They found the Monaco roof shingles more closely resembled the exiting concrete tile roofs and would better retain the existing design character of the roof. Staff recommended conditions of approval that required the applicant to use the Monaco roof shingles and retain existing deck railings, with modifications to allow proper drainage. They would require metal railing on Type 1 buildings because the proposed glass railings would give them a more institutional feel. The recommended conditions were listed in the January 31, 2014 Staff Memorandum. Questions of staff During the questioning period, Ms. Numanoglu pointed out there was a rendering showing how a cascading building would look with tinted glass railings and with the roof railing system removed. She clarified that staff recommended that the Hardi plank shingle accents be one or two shades lighter than the applicant proposed so there was more contrast between the body and accent colors. She confirmed staff recommended using the Monaco roofing material on all buildings. She clarified all the buildings currently had tile roofs that were the same material, but some looked more orange than red. She confirmed that Building Type 1 had flat areas. She explained that staff had no comment on the engineering study (Exhibit 59) because the criteria were about design. Structural integrity would be reviewed during the building permitting stage. Applicant Eric Hoff, proiect architect, discussed the roof, decks and colors. He testified that sometime during original construction, for unknown reasons, the roof had been changed from a standing seam metal roof to a concrete tile roof; and, the decks, which were supposed to be plywood decks with waterproofing membrane on them, had been changed to decks with concrete overlay. The applicant's engineering reports showed the weight of the concrete put the structures at their load limits and in distress. As an architect, Mr. Hoff was concerned about putting concrete materials back on the building and advised they needed to use a different product that the structures were capable of supporting. For that reason the applicant proposed composition roofing. He explained the original terra cotta color roof had been painted red in the late 1990s and the paint was coming off. He advised that in order to put tile back on the roof the entire structure would have to be redone to accommodate it and they would also be have to address the seismic issue. When asked, he clarified the engineer was not present. He clarified that the applicant proposed architectural composition style roofing and Monaco tile was the option. He said they could custom blend the oranges and reds of the composition material to achieve a color that was more complementary to the original colors on the roof. He related the Mountain Park Homeowners Association had composition architectural shingles on its approved materials list. However, there was an issue because the Association-prescribed weight for roofing was heavier. He indicated that the Association might be associating weight with longevity, but what the applicant proposed was a 50-year product without the weight and with a texture that matched the existing roof. It would not be red, because red was not approved by Mountain Park He showed photographs of the existing roof colors, and pointed out where orange color had worn to gray. He noted the existing materials made the complex look like two projects and the proposed change would give it a more coherent look, with a common color scheme and textures throughout the project. Mr. Hoff advised that his client had spent years attempting to remedy the problem that the bathtub- design decks with small drains in them caused leakage into units below. He observed that the Association assumed unit owners knew how to maintain them. He indicated they would change City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 10 of 22 how the decks drained so they no longer drained through the walls. He said instead of smoked glass they would defer to staff and use the metal railings that had been recommended for the Type 1 buildings on Type 2 buildings as well. That would allow them to install a new coating system for decks so they could drain the decks to the exterior face and put in proper flashings, while still emulating the sloping design. He advised that if they were required to reroof the original design they would need to create an uneven deck surface to get water to a drain. He indicated that he thought they could keep the existing look and use metal railings to create a visual connection between types of buildings. They would relate better to each other and to the neighborhood, which also featured metal and glass railing systems. He indicated the applicant would agree to the staff recommendation to have the accent shingles two tones lighter than the darker body color of the Hardie lap siding because they wanted that kind of contrast. He held the combination of all of the colors and products, including the windows and metal railings, still maintained the integrity of the slope on Type 2 buildings and they would look better. Questions of the Applicant Vice Chair Creighton noted what Mr. Hoff had presented was pretty much their preferred option. He asked if they had anything to present that showed the other options or the staff's recommendation. Mr. Hoff clarified they did not have another option to present. They agreed with the staff recommendation regarding colors. They agreed with the staff recommendation to have metal railings on Type 1 buildings and carry it over to Type 2 buildings. They could deal with Type 2 buildings with the railings on them left in place, but it would present design challenges and they felt there was a better option. Mr. Hoff clarified that Type 2 building decks were all over heated space; only the railing structures were cantilevered; the scupper was right at the transition to heated space; existing decks were concrete on plywood; the decks drained toward the center of the railing wall; and the applicant proposed to remove the concrete and apply membrane. Vice Chair Creighton referred to the diagram showing the cricketing system. He asked if the applicant would be comfortable that the cricketing system was adequate and would deal with water better than before if the Commission chose to keep the railing wall parapet system. Mr. Hoff related that as a forensic architect he was aware that was a system there had been costly litigation over. It was prone to failure more times than not because it was an attempt to direct water to a specific location and through it. Everything had to function perfectly all the time. Cricketing was a hard system to make work all the time. At this facility there had been multiple, unsuccessful attempts to make the system function over 30 years. Vice Chair Creighton referred to the applicant's testimony that the originally planned metal roof somehow got replaced with concrete tile. He commented that using concrete on the roofs and decks created a significant increase in weight and it was no wonder they were having problems. Mr. Hoff advised they had a lot of deflection issues going on because of overloading the structure and it was not allowing water to flow where it should. Vice Chair Creighton inquired what membrane the applicant would use if the Commission agreed they could remove the parapet wall and go with an open railing system. Mr. Hoff indicated that would depend on how it looked. They had looked at a Trimco Life Deck product. He confirmed that would allow them to create a mono- slope pitch to the outside. There would be a short wall left in the middle. Some decks were offset to one side. There would be a small cricket at those points just to keep water from pooling against it. However, they would not end up with the wall all the way back cricketed out. He confirmed that for the most part the slope of the deck would be uniform from the sliding glass door to the outside edge of the deck. From there would be a gutter system to take the water over to the storm drain system. Mr. Hoff talked about the color palette. The applicant was looking at an orange-brown color they thought was closest to the existing color. They could have it custom mixed. He explained they City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 11 of 22 would have to talk to Mountain Park about using Monaco tile. The issue was its weight. Mountain Park wanted certain poundage per square foot and Monaco (at 285) weighed less than other material on their approved list, which were 355. He thought they equated weight with longevity. He clarified the Presidential material was about 430. He agreed with Chair Richards that the key difference was the appearance of a flat roof versus one that had more of a wave to it and appeared more like tile. Mr. Needham related that he had owned a house with a metal roof that was terra cotta metal panels and it was light weight. Mr. Hoff agreed it was a product that looked like tile, but it was extremely costly and there was controversy in the industry about it due to issues related to bending it while walking on it and that the coating broke down and left pin holes. Mr. Hoff clarified that he would have to look at the engineering report to find the weight of the existing concrete tile. He agreed it could average 1,000 lbs. per square and was considerably heavy. The current issue was they were at dead load on the roof and imposing more load, perhaps a snow load, would exceed capacity. The structural posts as well as the roof structure were of concern. Structural crushing and differential settling was happening. Vice Chair Creighton noted the materials they were talking about that night weighed in the neighborhood of 300 to 400 pounds, and because building departments allowed two to three roofs to be installed over each other, they could conceivably get back up to the existing 900 pound weight over time. Mr. Poulson referred to the structural report. He and Mr. Hoff discussed whether calculation rates for bending stresses used for the wood might have changed since the structures were built. Mr. Poulson suggested the quality of the wood that had been used when they were built might mean bending stresses might be higher. However, he recalled the report measured bending stresses by current wood standards. He asked if there was empirical evidence of crushing or other structural problems that might indicate there was a human health and safety issue. Mr. Hoff related that he had asked the applicant's engineer if they had a problem based on the numbers when it was built versus today's numbers. The engineer had confirmed that and that it was based on the numbers used then. Mr. Hoff reported there was observable distress going on the site. He said there was nothing recorded that showed anyone checked the building before they put the tile on it. He related the structural analysis found there was a seismic issue now, and as soon as they started doing something on the roof they had to bring it up to today's code. He said they found problems related to aspects such as differential settling and cracking. The main issue was that the roof was leaking like a sieve. It was not put together correctly; it had bad flashing; a lot of things were wrong with it and needed correcting; the tile was not available; and, it had been painted. If they started taking it apart they would need to figure out how to put it back together without making it a nightmare to look at. His experience told him that could not be done successfully. He stressed that the Association needed to use some other material because they were spending a lot of money. Mr. Poulson recalled there had been testimony that there was no compelling reason to take the existing cedar siding off. Mr. Hoff advised that it had basically reached the end of its useful life. It had not been maintained well since it was installed. A lot of the siding had deteriorated to the point it could not be recovered. In some places the paneling was delaminating. Coatings would not stay on it and even preparing it for coatings did additional damage to it. Vice Chair Creighton observed a number of unit owners raised the issue of the weight of the heavy lap siding versus the weight of the concrete tile roof. He asked Mr. Hoff to discuss the relative ability of a wall to support weight like that versus horizontal elements such as a roof structure with 900 pounds per square load. Mr. Hoff offered a detailed explanation of why a vertical wall load had a far greater load-carrying capability than a horizontal member with load put on it over a long span. Chair Richards asked if the applicant contended that all of the cedar siding had perished and needed to be replaced. Mr. Hoff clarified not 100% of it because some of it might be salvageable, but the resulting design would have a piecemeal look. He stressed that now was the time to address all of the issues the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 12 of 22 buildings had. There were leaks and deficiencies over just about every square inch of them. The result of patching them all and putting so many dissimilar materials next to each other was that the buildings would end up looking like they had the measles. He said the Hardie material was simpler to maintain than cedar wood; it did not have the absorption characteristics that cedar did; it would take paint and coating and they would last longer than on cedar; and cedar needed to be sealed and maintained. Mr. Needham related that he had read all of the letters. There seemed to be a lot of arguments against what the applicant was proposing, which was to tear it down and start fresh. He commented that from a forensic perspective he understood that was the simplest, most guaranteed solution, particularly in a wet environment. Mr. Hoff related that his experience was that he had seen more cedar buildings in distress than buildings with any other type of siding system. If they were not built and maintained correctly they failed. Mr. Needham observed that if the proposed project was not done correctly there would still be water intrusion issues. Mr. Hoff indicated that he was there to see that it got done right. Proponents Gisela Moll, 3 Owego Summit, supported the proposal, but asked for railings that would give her more privacy from the street than clear glass railings. She noted that metal railings might work well on Type 1 buildings because they had trees in front of them and were sitting higher off the street, but it did not work well for street-facing buildings in Building 2 because the street was so close and the sidewalk was higher. She added that not everyone had nice outdoor furniture and they could not force them to. She said she liked the privacy she had with the closed roofs or could have with tempered glass railing people could not look through. She wholeheartedly supported renovation to protect the property; because piecemeal work in past years had never worked out; and because her existing windows needed to be replaced. Questions During the questioning period, Ms. Moll confirmed that smoked glass railings would be better than clear glass railings. It would depend on how well people could see through it. She liked the modern look. She understood the scuppers had not been working well and she knew the architect was trying to take the water off their patios. Arthur Curtis, 143 Oswego Summit, related that he had just purchased his condo. He indicated he favored the proposed comprehensive approach to renovations in order to avoid piecemeal repairs. Ernie Hebert, 4 Oswego Summit, related he had lived there for many years. He recalled ten years ago the Association had removed and replaced bad shakes and pressure washed and resealed the rest. Now they still had leaks and problems, including his unit. He supported taking a holistic approach. He indicated he liked dark, smoked glass, railings for privacy reasons; because they looked less institutional than metal railings. Questions Mr. Hebert was asked what the winter of 1996 was like at Oswego Summit. He recalled when they shoveled snow off the deck they had to ensure it did not fall on a deck below. They had to be sure to keep the scuppers clear so they did not freeze and then leak into the unit below. Janet Feldman, 211 Oswego Summit, said the complex needed a holistic fix because a piecemeal approach was not going to work. She related the cedar shingles looked terrible. They were curling up and falling off. She said she did not like the Hardieplank material, but it would be easier to maintain and better for the overall health of the buildings in the long term. She indicated concern City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 13 of 22 about form over function would lead to things falling apart. She said the Hardieplank looked pretty good and people wanted to live in a dry, safe unit. The complex would look a lot better when they had siding that was easily maintained. She noted people complained about the cost of the proposal and some were in financial difficulty. However, she anticipated things would get worse if they did not fix the problem now and have something they could maintain. Loraine McConnell, Building 25, said she had a view and did not need air conditioning in summertime because she had metal railings. She would prefer metal railings to glass railings, which would block her breeze enough that she needed an air conditioner. She acknowledged that other owners might want different railings for privacy. She supported the proposal because she agreed they needed to take a holistic approach and the approach that was proposed was a sound one. Karen Risch, 103 Oswego Summit, said she had lived there for ten years. Her ceiling had fallen in when the deck above her flooded. The north wall of her unit was separating from the ceiling so there was about a quarter inch gap now that was not there last year. She suspected that was due to the concrete load on the deck above her. She was concerned about the delay the procedure had caused them. She was very concerned about the condition of her building because she heard loud cracks. State Farm Insurance had dropped her after the sewer backed up in her unit and the Association would not take care of that cost. The next insurer had just notified her that they were not going to reinsure unless she could show them pictures of the new siding and the roof. She had explained to them she had no control over the condition. She was concerned about the delay in getting a development permit because meanwhile she would not be able to get insurance coverage. She was concerned about the idea that they had to have visual continuity and that people wanted to keep the old deck style; that was a mistake. She asked the Commission to let them put glass railings in and pitch it the way they wanted to because the existing drainage system just did not work and had caused all kinds of problems for lots of people there. She said cedar siding had to be recoated every 2.5 years and they had not done that. In addition, it was prohibitively expensive. She said those who favored hanging onto it had not really looked at the cost. She did not want to pay for cedar siding that was expensive and difficult to maintain. She said the proposed plan was fabulous, and engineers had researched the buildings and really thought this out. She asked the Commission to let the project get started. She related that so far she had been paid three months of assessments for a project that was supposed to have been started in June of last year. She reported she had been trying to sell her place; she had lost three sales when the purchasers found out about the special assessments. Questions During the questioning period, Ms. Riche clarified her unit was in Phase 1, Building 15, which staff referred to as a Type 2 building. It had a sloped roof. She related there was mold in the walls. Sandra Ferguson, 139 Oswego Summit, indicated that she lived in one of the sloped-roof style buildings. She had served on the board for ten years (1995 to 2005) and served as president for five of those years. She said she was one of the 71% of owners who were in favor of the project. They had conducted a straw vote. Of the 214 residents 173 had voted. 105 of them were in favor and 68 against. She related that during the time she served on the board the Association had spent $2 million on targeted repairs. The warranty on the rectangular buildings had been allowed to lapse in 2010. They had spent roughly $870,000 just to stabilize the cascading buildings. At the time (around 2008) they had been told they had three to five years. By 2013 nothing had been done to stabilize them. At this point they had a roof that had been much of the problem from the day the project was built. They had cedar shingles that with the best of intensions had not been maintained over the past five years. They had spent $2 million on targeted repairs, and they were looking at shingles that were failing. She related that she had bought into the complex because City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 14 of 22 she loved the shingles. She had fought to keep them from being painted and from being tinted. When they were first told they would lose the shingles, she had networked with historical preservationists and had a contractor look at the property. His response was that it would be prohibitively expensive to replace the shingles. She recalled the discussion of bending stresses. The contractor had explained to her that the old growth shingles on the cascading side had been cut in 1970, so they were thicker than shingles would be cut in 2014. To try to replace damaged shingles they would essentially be trying to replace shingles cut in 1970 with those cut in 2014, which were different. It would just be too expensive to try and save them. Mr. Poulson clarified that when they talked about bending stress they were referring to actual structural wood members of the frame itself. Bending stress was likely better when the complex was built because they used older trees. Ms. Ferguson noted they had different shingles then. She said that as much as she hated to say it she did not believe they could salvage the shingles. Ms. Ferguson talked about deck railings. She explained that the four rectangular buildings all faced outward. Most of them were at an elevation that meant that had a view outward and houses were either farther away or lower. The 21 cascading buildings faced inward, so a covered deck provided her with privacy from her neighbors. . Questions Mr. Needham asked if they had a problem with aspects such as people living there part time and not maintaining the scuppers. She responded that the community pretty well took care of what they could take care of, but they could not take care of problems when they did not know there was a problem. While she served on the board they had initiated a maintenance schedule and the board tried to maintain the scuppers and drains because residents either did not know they were responsible for the scuppers, or they could not do it. She suggested elevating the horizontal members of the solid deck so there were two to three inches that the water could run through. She said they were looking at a maintenance schedule that provided for cleaning of drains three to four times a year. She said if they allowed water to run out under a solid horizontal wall for privacy and to keep the architecture tied together, then they could also follow the maintenance schedule and keep those drains clean. Then they should be okay. Ms. Johnson asked what type of roof Ms. Ferguson preferred. She replied that she preferred the shingled roof and had always thought the tile looked "like Santa Barbara had run smack into Seattle." She said the tile roof had been painted on her watch. At the time they painted it they had looked at the original tile and matched the original color as closely as they could. They had not known at that time that painting them was not a good idea and they could not find roof tiles. Their contactor had recommended that as one way to stabilize (not to salvage) it. Ms. Johnson asked Ms. Ferguson which roof style she preferred: brown, flat shingles, or the more rippled Monaco tile. Ms. Ferguson envisioned that the Hardi plank horizontal members would be fairly flat and that they would not have the same light absorption quality and depth as the existing cedar shingles. The solid horizontal deck railings that might be removed were part of the original architecture and tied it all together. One would see varied lengths of diagonals. She said she would like to see more texture on the roof because they would have less texture on the horizontals; and, she really would like to find a way to tie the diagonals together, especially on the cascading side, because that was a feature of the original architecture. She pointed out where the diagonals she was referring to were and noted they would not present with any degree of coherency. She was concerned about having deck items visible, such as old lawn furniture and dead plants. She related that noise would be an issue for units 1-4; privacy would become an issue for the six units that looked at one another; and maintaining the architectural integrity of the structures was an issue for everyone. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 15 of 22 Neither for nor Against Jan Campbell, Acting Chairperson, Mountain Park Homeowners Association Architectural Committee, clarified that she did not live in Oswego Summit. She advised that the Committee met monthly and this would probably not be presented to them before their February meeting. The applicant would need to submit new applications for everything they were doing, including roofs, colors, windows, and decks. Vice Chair Creighton asked if any roofing material the applicant had presented that night was an approved product. She replied that Presidential in charcoal was approved, and they had approved colors. She recalled the black was the gutters, doors, and garage doors. She commented that she thought if they put black next to the orange roof it would look like Halloween. Ms. Campbell confirmed for Mr. Needham that even if the Commission approved colors and materials, the Mountain Park Architectural Committee could still say no. She clarified that the Committee had already approved some things, but the applicant would need to apply again to have the changes they proposed approved. She clarified that a lot of things, such as roofing materials, were preapproved so the applicant would not have to wait for the committee to meet to approve them; however, the staff-recommended roof material was not an approved material. Ms. Mari Moore said they had an approval for all of the proposed colors except for the lighter one that staff recommended for the Hardie shake. Martha Dougherty, 70 Oswego Summit (97034), said she had lived in Oswego Summit since 1977 when it was apartments. There was a large minority who did not agree with the proposal. Her concerns were appearance, workmanship and quality of materials. If the Commission approved the design she asked that they include all of the staff recommendations related to the new design and the last design. Those included replacing all existing windows in the same shape and size they were now, and keeping the current privacy decks with the revisions for the needed drainage. She said the glass railings would take away part of the roof and some of their privacy. She said the surface they were going to put on the decks was apparently a type where one had to be careful not to dig into it. That would be an issue when they shoveled snow, for example. She said windows had been the responsibility of homeowners. She liked the idea of using Monaco roof shingles, which were intended to look like European roofs. She thought the roofs needed to show some dimension. She asked for assurance that the other structures, including carports, garages and trash buildings on the property be complementary to the 25 buildings. She said she was really concerned about workmanship and quality of materials. She had been through all of the repairs and could tell them where every leak in her building came from. She reported she had been leak free for a few years until there was a problem with the drainage system. She thought that was because it was too small for the buildings. Opponents Claudv Lynch, 66 Oswego Summit (97034) and also owner of Unit 67, asked if the Commissioners had read opponents' letters. Chair Richards confirmed that. She asked the Commission to deny the application. She indicated she wanted to see a new proposal that preserved the intent and nature of the existing structure and preserved the siding and roofing as it was originally intended in the design. She read aloud most of her written testimony Exhibit G-289 in which she contended that the revised application did not respect the spirit or the letter of the Commission's previous motion to deny; and, the plans did not meet the "substantially revised" criterion. She said the applicant had only presented substantially revised reasons for doing the remodel, blaming maintenance and diagnosis failures of the past and weight overload of the concrete decks and tiles. She indicated that she concurred with most of the staff recommendations in the January 3 staff report because they were consistent with the previous motion to deny. She held that was the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 16 of 22 core issue and that was what should be addressed no matter what arguments were being made about how difficult it was to repair the problems. Ms. Lynch clarified that she did not concur with the staff recommendation that the cedar siding could be removed and replaced with Hardi plank shingle-like inserts. She indicated it was an inferior concrete fiber product. She held the case for the need to remove the cedar shingle siding, in terms of both economics and design, still needed to be made by the applicant. A number of experts did not agree with the applicant's assessment of the siding and roofs and their allegation that overload problems from the concrete tile roofs were the source of leaks at the complex. She indicated that engineering calculations were available that indicated the existing concrete tiles were within the safe zone of stress. She described the Hayden engineering study as not more than a narrative, sketchy, and anecdotal. It confused the contribution of the weight of the deck with leak problems. She indicated she had been told by structural engineers with expertise in roof design that if a condition of overload existed the foundations of the buildings would show cracks and strains; the deflections of the building structure would be very visible; and there would be larger numbers of tiles on the ground. She pointed out she had submitted correspondence she had with Dan Cornwell, President of CC&L Roofing Company of Portland and a member of the Tile Roofing Institute Technical Committee. His conclusion was if they had hung there for 38 years then it was not the roofing tiles that were causing problems. If there were strains and stresses the foundations would show it. She noted the Association had confirmed the foundations were okay. She reported the Association had told them at the last homeowners' meeting they did not have the engineering computations they had based their decision on that showed there was too much weight. Ms. Lynch concluded that the applicant had failed to meet design standards criteria, and the Commission should deny the application once again on the basis that it was still incomplete and its proposed solutions were still unsubstantiated. She also reported there were a growing number of lawsuits over Hardiplank due to defects. Lloyd Kostow, 179 Oswego Summit, had submitted Exhibit G-291. He testified that he had lived in Oswego Summit since it was new. He had been attracted to it by its cedar siding and red tile roofs. He agreed with Ms. Lynch's testimony. He pointed out an additional issue that there was a substantial difference between Phase 1 (the older part) that they had spent all their time talking about, and Phase 2, where he lived. He said there was really not much wrong with his building. He suggested some maintenance could take care of the problems in Phase 2. The issue for Phase 2 owners was they were not getting much for a huge assessment. They were basically paying to support Phase 1. He said he did not know what the solution was. He noted there was going to be an election of board members the following month. He said it was fair and reasonable to give them a chance to elect a new board that would listen to their concerns better than the current board had. Brenda Fulle, 116 Oswego Summit, had submitted Exhibit G-280. She contrasted a community that talked civility to each other and a community that was divided. She talked about security and home in relation to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. As for sense of home, she had been attracted to the complex because of the Nantucket-like old growth cedar shakes. She liked the combination of the shakes and the red tiled roofs which made her feel expansive. She could not imagine walking the grounds in a plasticized look. In regard to profitability, she could see how lawyers, Western Architect, and I&E would profit from the $7.6 million project, but she had a harder time seeing how the community members were going to profit from it when some were short-selling and being foreclosed on and the property value was dropping. She questioned whether the remodel would raise the value enough. In regard to power, she reported that her own informal survey of the homeowners indicated the four members of the Association and the project manager were using smoke and mirrors to make it appear opponents were the vocal minority. She said she wished she City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 17 of 22 had the courage not to pay the assessment she had been paying for three months. They did not have bank approval, city approval, a design, and construction was not happening. She concluded with a blessing asking for reconciliation. Ron Plath, 198 Oswego Summit, had submitted Exhibit G-273. He testified that architects had told them the cedar siding was fine. He said the `vocal minority' was actually a majority because they wrote the majority of the letters and were the majority of owners who came to the meetings. A group of them had met the previous Saturday to gauge how much of a minority they really were. They contacted others in their buildings. Opponents were opposed because the project was illegal and/or because there was no "Plan B." It was illegal because 75% of the persons present or by proxy had to approve a project of this size. There were 214 units, so any number over 54 meant there was not 75% approval. Ms. Ferguson had testified that 68 voted against. He said opponents were not allowed to see the votes. He recalled the applicant's representative had been asked what Plan B or an alternative plan was and had indicated there was none. He said they did not want people to have leaking roofs or mold, and they did want the units to look like they did now. They thought someone should have at least taken the time to look at a "Plan B" that might be affordable and allow those who wanted to stay to stay. Mr. Plath talked about financing, and how two different bankruptcy/foreclosure attorneys had described how a "death spiral" would unfold. In 15 years the larger units would pay $172,000 in homeowner fees. The number of people staying and paying would get smaller and smaller as foreclosures happened. That would cause even more people to leave. The connection with planning was that if half the people left (or were staying and not paying pending foreclosure) and the remaining half could not pay the project would sit there half finished. He stressed they could not afford to do what was proposed. All they had ever asked for was a Plan B. The applicant had not even considered one. Chair Richards asked those who testified to keep testimony pertinent to what the Commission was allowed to consider. He explained that things having to do with the homeowners' association or finances were outside the Commission's purview. Gino Pieretti, 184 Oswego Summit (Building 24), had submitted written testimony in Exhibit G-292. He related that architects John Madison and Ray Bartell had looked at applicant's plans and reports and looked at the buildings and told the Association that the cedar siding looked bad just because of dirt and grime. It could be cleaned up, oiled and tinted. The few areas that were bad because of leaks or things like improper insertion of windows and doors could just be replaced. That was done at beach resorts featuring cedar siding. Mr. Pieretti said that would save $3 million. He had submitted a copy of the filing that showed Hardiplank was the subject of a class action lawsuit filed against James Nardi Building Products, Inc. in US District Court, District of Minnesota in 2011. He begged the Commissioners to read it. He asked them to note how the warranty was limited and read about the problems the plaintiff had with the siding in 2007, which included flaking off, shrinking, warping, delaminating, and pulling from fasteners, resulting in water penetration. Mr. Pieretti indicated he wanted to keep the cedar siding. He indicated he had also received some information from an uncle of one of the unit owners who had reported that he had talked his association into keeping their cedar siding. Mr. Pieretti pointed out he had submitted copies of some National Business Review articles with the headlines: "Education Ministry launches lawsuit against James Hardie over leaky schools"; and "James Hardie sees New Zealand leaky building, schools legal action costing up to US $47.6 million." He noted the articles reported the company had a slew of leaky building cases hanging over its head; including a lawsuit that alleged that several thousand school buildings were leaky and were seeking repair costs and damages. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 18 of 22 Mr. Pieretti said condominium management companies indicated that those who built condos, but not too well, in the 1970s had made a lot of money. Then a lot of defective construction cases were filed and the complexes got settlement money. Then, they heard companies like Western Architecture tell them they needed a whole new envelope. He said opponents did not want people who could not afford this to have to leave because of the project to take off the shakes and put on Hardiplank. He asked the Commissioners to read his written testimony. Harry Norstrom, 171 Oswego Summit, had submitted written testimony in Exhibit G-278. He read some of it aloud. He was aged 78 and he and his wife were living in fear that the Commission might overlook the fact that when they voted to deny on November 18 the motion stated they wanted to see a new proposal that preserved the intent and nature of the existing structure and preserved the siding as it was originally intended in the design. He held the revised proposal did not do that. The applicant had come back with the same Hardiplank lap siding and simply proposed to add Hardiplank shingle accents. It was not the cedar shingles they all chose when they decided to live there. It was not what they wanted. He testified that they had never been offered a choice because they had never had the opportunity to vote yes or no on it. They had never been given an alternative. They had told him his share of the assessment was $47,900. The Commissioners assured Mr. Norstrom that they had each read his written testimony. Mr. Norstrom asked the Commission to deny the application for all the various reasons that had been expressed. Questions Mr. Poulson asked Mr. Norstrom to clarify why they were living in fear. Mr. Norstrom said he had described their fears in his letter. His biggest fear was that they and their neighbors could not afford the assessment and many of them could lose their homes in one fashion or another such as through foreclosure or short sales. They feared the visual perception of Oswego Summit with multitudes of For Sale' signs would make it undesirable. Two signs had just been posted in his building. He feared that was only the beginning. Ken Kaufmann, Lovinger Kaufmann LLP, 825 NE Multnomah, Ste. 925, Portland, Oregon 97232, stated he represented Jennifer Tuio, 194 Oswego Summit (Building 24). He highlighted portions of his January 13, 2014 letter to the Commission (Exhibit G-290). He said Ms. Tujo was aware of the complex's current ailments, but was concerned that the proposed cure would be worse than the sickness. He indicated that the applicant proposed to dumb down three elements that made Oswego Summit one of the prettiest, more recognized, and most desirable condominiums in Lake Oswego: the cascading roofs and decks; the cedar siding; and the iconic red tile roof. It would look like just another, ordinary, apartment building. He said the applicant had not made a compelling case for replacing the tile roof and the cedar siding. In regard to roof forms and deck railings Ms. Tujo agreed with staff that they were integral to the overall architectural integrity and should be retained. She also agreed the metal railings on Type 1 buildings should be retained. They were significant architectural features. Mr. Kaufmann advised the Commission must not allow them to be altered per DR 8-75 and TC 117-75 cited in footnotes in his letter. He noted staff concluded there were only three elements the Commission had the discretion to review: landscaping, signage, and exterior materials and colors. He reasoned that if the roof form deck was removed there would be significant impact to the visibility and privacy of unit owners. They had heard testimony about that. He indicated that if the Type 1 structures' railings were replaced with opaque glass or smoky glass then their view and ventilation would change substantially. Both were very significant changes to the architectural features of the building. Mr. Kaufmann noted the structural concerns regarding the roof were not substantiated. He said it was unfortunate that the applicant had repeatedly told the Commission and association members that maintaining the existing tile roof was not an option due to structural concerns. That statement City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 19 of 22 was contrary to that applicant's own structural engineering report. Their structural calculations showed the roof framing loads were within allowable limits under all evaluated loading scenarios. He said there were several attributions to structural problems in the project narrative that were not supported by the Hayden report. He held what was being implied was not correct. He noted the Commission had heard that the cost-effectiveness of Hardiplank was questionable. He noted they had heard the economic viability of the project was suspect, even before any costs added by the review and change orders, and by damage to the interior of the units that was not covered by the contract. They had heard the applicant had not obtained all necessary approvals to proceed, including Mountain Park HOA approval and from 75% of unit owners. He said the applicant was unlikely to obtain such approvals unless it could provide a better rationale for the project than they had to date. He said Ms. Tujo asked the Commission to affirm Mr. Poulson's November hearing motion asking the applicant to preserve the siding and the roofing as it was originally intended in the design. In the alternative, if the Commission did not so hold, she asked that the Commission make it clear that any approval of non-original materials, such a Hardiplank or Monaco roofing, did not preclude the association from deciding to retain its existing cedar shakes and existing tile roofs should it have a change of heart. He noted that given the many questions about the feasibility of the project in its current form, future changes to the proposed design appeared likely. Guidance from the Commission regarding how such changes would affect the design review process would be helpful as the members of Oswego Summit considered their options going forward. Mr. Kaufman indicated that he had asked Riccardo Pitts to testify (see below). Riccardo Pitts, 11605 NE 16th Street, Vancouver, Washington, (Exhibit G-294) stated that he was a registered professional engineer. He confirmed he was a structural engineer. The attorneys for an opponent had hired him to review and speak to the Hayden Consulting Engineers' report as an expert witness. He reported that he did not find fault with the analysis, but he found their conclusions were suspect. He read aloud from their report: `However, as it stands now with the concrete deck toppings it is our opinion that the framing cannot support the additional weight of the concrete roof tiles.' Mr. Pitts contrasted that statement with their analysis in which the roof members passed. He observed that of the failing members only one had roof load on it. He noted the analysis was done using 2005 NDS (the National Design Specification for wood) and the 2009 IBC. He advised the design stress that was allowed in 1975 was 1,300 lbs per square inch, but now it was 900. The 1997 rate that he found was about 1,350. He said the difference was due to using old growth timber versus fast growth timber. Mr. Pitts related that he specialized in the most extreme condition states: high seismic, high winds areas, and he did plenty of forensic work related to structural design. One of the things he ran into was that old buildings would typically not pass today's Code even without any extra weight on them, even though they might have been standing for a long time. A new chapter had been adopted to deal with them. He submitted excerpts from the 2010 Oregon Structural Specialty Code. He referred to Section 3404, Alterations, which would apply to buildings such as those in Oswego Summit, which had been standing there for 38 years. He spoke to redundancy of wood construction. In reading the reports he did not see anything that indicated severe distress or failure. Section 3404.3 said any existing gravity load-carrying structural element for which an alteration causes an increase in designed gravity load of more than 5% shall be strengthened. That meant if the alteration or addition to the element did not stress it more than 5% of what it was stressed at already, then it was adequate. He advised that replacing the tile roof with like tile or leaving the tile alone did not overstress the building any more than it was stressed now. So according to this Code there was no reason structurally that the building could not support the roof it was supporting now. He recalled they had heard a lot about cost. Section 3404.4 called for any existing lateral load-carrying structural element (referring to wind and seismic forces and elements such as shear walls and concrete walls) whose demand capacity ratio with the alteration considered was not more than 10% greater than the demand capacity ratio with the alteration City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 20 of 22 ignored was to be permitted to remain unaltered. He advised that Hardiplank weighed almost twice what cedar shingles weighed. He said he had not run the numbers, but in his opinion there was a lot of surface area of wall that would be covered with Hardiplank. He said his suspicion was the Hardiplank would surpass the 10% allowed by Chapter 34 and push the entire building into a seismic upgrade condition. Then it would have to be analyzed and brought up to current seismic standard. He noted that would cost a lot more than the $7 million they had been talking about. Questions Vice Chair Creighton referred to the Hayden report regarding deck loading on page 557 of the hearing packet. He suggested the reason why the engineer's numbers did not show anything as failing could be because he was pretty light on his concrete load. Mr. Pitts agreed, but noted that was on a deck, not a roof. He clarified that he did not have any issue with the decks. Obviously, water intrusion would always be an issue when a deck was over a living area. Vice Chair Creighton related that the Commission had found out that night that they were not designed for concrete topping. Mr. Pitts responded that the fact remained that at some point it was approved and done and it was there today. Vice Chair Creighton recalled that the roof was not designed for concrete tile either. He noted in a seismic condition the height and weight of the material would make a big difference. Mr. Pitts said he would not disagree with that. His only concern was that the engineer's report did not take Chapter 34 into consideration. When Vice Chair Creighton observed they were definitely beyond the 10%, Mr. Pitts agreed. The Commission recessed and then reconvened the hearing. Rebuttal Stuart Cohen, 1300 SW Fifth Ave. Portland. Oregon, attorney for the homeowners association, indicated he wanted to put to rest some issues which had been raised but were not relevant. One was that this was an illegal project. He advised it was not. He cited a court ruling in Washington County where a board of directors had decided to replace cedar siding with Hardiplank. The court ruled that the board had the authority and the fiduciary obligation to do the repairs. That was what the applicant was attempting to do with this project. Another issue was that the proposal was a surprise and new to the opponents. He said it was not. They had held over 20 community meetings about the project. A recall election had been held over it. The proponents of the recall failed to recall the board of directors in order to kill the project. That meant the majority of the community was behind getting a project done. He noted there was a vocal minority at the hearing. Mr. Hoff said the applicant had looked at the options of what could be done. The primary driver was that the building envelope (what was under the shingles, the roof and the walls) was done and the building had to be repaired. That created a design issue. They had presented their best options to get a viable product that was a whole community of buildings that functioned. He addressed the cost of shingles and the calls to do a targeted repair. He indicated they had looked at the numbers. 30% replacement of shingles would cost as much as putting Hardie product on the entire buildings. He said they knew from conditions underneath that there was a ton of work to do, so the cost would go past that. He indicated the applicant could agree if the Commission decided to put metal railings as they exist back on the Type 1 buildings. He indicated they had no problem with whichever of the roofing products the Commission required. He explained they would have to take the roof apart to fix everything under it whether it was structural problems or leaks. The tiles were not going to survive and they were not replaceable. He said they preferred not to put the deck roof systems back as they were now. They felt that the design should go forward with the railings on it whether they were of opaque glass for privacy or metal railings that allowed ventilation. He advised that if the Commission decision was to keep the deck roof system it would pose a lot of problems for the decks going forward. He related that the applicant wanted the Commission to make a decision that night. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 21 of 22 Questions of Applicant Vice Chair Creighton recalled testimony about the privacy issue and that the tall buildings kind of towered over everything and there did not seem to be the same issues with Type 1 versus the other types. He recalled the applicant had said the project consisted of two distinct designs. He asked if the applicant could treat Type 1 building railings differently or was it the opinion of the Association to use the same railings throughout the project no matter what. He recalled they had talked about a metal railing with something like tubular or square balusters and a smoked glass railing. He asked if there was an option of using both. Mr. Hoff responded that it could be done. As an architect he would draw it. He commented that a designer's intent was not usually to mix and match throughout a project. He advised that Type 1 buildings benefitted from a pretty continuous tree screen and they sat higher. The issue with the cascading buildings was as one walked up to them on the street level they were downhill of the viewer. They were the last buildings right at the site access point that were more at grade. As for the internal buildings— regardless of the railings, which were only about tabletop high — it was unfortunate, but the neighbors would be able to see each other. He said in almost all complexes where there were internal buildings they looked at each other. They lacked privacy regardless of the type of railing. Vice Chair Creighton commended the applicant for improving their proposal since the last hearing. Mr. Hoff asked Commission to deliberate and decide the application. Mr. Pieretti and Ms. Lynch requested that the hearing be continued. Mr. Needham moved to continue LU 13-0042 to 6:00 p.m. on February 3, 2014, for written testimony only. Written testimony was to be received by 5:00 p.m. on January 22, 2014; and written rebuttal testimony was to be received by 5:00 p.m. January 27th. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT Chair Richards adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Reynolds /s/ Janice Reynolds Administrative Assistant City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 15, 2014 Page 22 of 22