Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2014-10-20 -APPROVED.' CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO r,-.1° widow Development Review Commission Minutes October 20, 2014 Chair Bob Needham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 A Avenue. Members present: Chair Bob Needham, Vice-Chair Brent Ahrend, Ann Johnson, Kelly Melendez, David Poulson, Gregg Creighton and Paden Prichard Staff present: Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Assistant City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support MINUTES Mr. Ahrend moved to approve the Minutes of May 5, 2014. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0:1. Mr. Prichard abstained. Mr. Ahrend moved to approve the Minutes of May 19, 2014. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion and it passed 5:0:2. Mr. Creighton and Mr. Prichard abstained. PUBLIC HEARING LU 13-0020: A request by Brian and Linda Kitchen for approval of a modification of an approved Development Review Permit (LU 99-0012) to construct a new single family dwelling. The applicants also are requesting approval to remove 11 trees. Location of Property: 211 Furnace Street (Tax Lot 101 of Tax Map 21E1 1BC). Chair Needham opened the public hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria and procedure. Mr. Creighton and Mr. Ahrend each declared making a specific site visit. No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Staff Report Ms. Hastay highlighted that the site was Lot 1 of a 5-lot planned development (PD) approved in 1997. The application was subject to the R-DD zone standards in place at the time of approval of the PD and it met them. She discussed that the site was in the Old Town Neighborhood Design District and how it met those standards. With primarily Vernacular design elements and secondary Craftsman design elements it reflected elements and materials of approved Old Town styles and materials. The trees were proposed to be removed for construction purposes. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to the conditions of approval listed in the October 10, 2014 Staff Report, with Condition A(7) modified to not require the applicant to use a civil engineer to complete an erosion control plan. Staff agreed with the applicants that their team had sufficient knowledge to meet erosion control standards. Ms. Hastay advised that the application would satisfy all development standards with a condition of approval requiring the applicants to provide a landscape plan that helped the proposal meet Building Design standards related to integrating the new dwelling into the streetscape and softening its appearance from the street. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 20, 2014 Page 1 of 4 Questions of Staff Ms. Hastay clarified the front porch requirement. The proposed porch is shown to be 10.5 feet wide but porches were limited to 10 feet wide as measured from the columns [Condition A(1)(a)]. The house setback was 10 feet but the front porch could project into that setback. It projected into it for about five feet. She clarified that Old Town did not regulate the proportion of the front elevation the garage could be. She clarified approval of this request to remove trees for construction would not preclude the applicants from applying for hazard tree removal permits in the future to remove trees the arborist reported appeared to be hazardous. Ms. Melendez noted some trees proposed to be removed were close but not within the building footprint. Ms. Hastay advised many of them had grown up since the 1997 PD approval and that protecting those trees to the drip line could hinder construction activity. Applicant Chris Olson, Olson Group Architects, 17150 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Durham, Oregon (97224), related his firm's experience with the house which had already been built and the other house that had been remodeled in the same development under the rules in place in 1999. It had been challenging because the sites were steep and 1999 height measurement methodology was different than current methodology. He indicated there was really only one logical, somewhat flat, area to place the house, garage and access. He clarified that the trees were proposed to be removed for development purposes. Trees #10— 13 were technically part of the footprint because they were in the driveway. He explained it would be hard to excavate around the root balls of trees that were close to but not within the footprint on the steep slope. There were several other trees the arborist had checked on which could be hazard trees that a property owner might apply to remove. He indicated the applicants proposed a fairly modest-sized house that fit within the flat ground area close to the street and was not too far down the hill. They set the front façade at the 10-foot front setback line and used the projecting front porch to provide some connection to the street. They touched the height limit in about five locations. They tried to have simple massing and used simple materials to be consistent with the development pattern along the street. He suggested the Commission's focus should primarily be on the more viewable front façade and garage because the rest of the house stepped back and down the hill where it was not very prominent due to the curve of Leonard Street and the landscaping. Questions of the Applicant Mr. Olson confirmed the information that said the garage was on a slab on grade was a typographical error. He clarified the lower floor space with an outside entrance was intended for the owners' mother/family members and they did not intend to rent it. He confirmed the height measurement methodology they had to use was challenging. It was the methodology in place when the PD was approved — not the current methodology. He discussed the likely specifications for the shingles. Public Testimony- Neither for nor Against Corinna Campbell-Sack. 208 Durham St., asked the applicant to consider reconfiguring the interior floor plan so they could add a second window to the plain, shingled, ground level of the Furnace Street façade. She suggested they might consider fenestration in a belly band. She advised that it was a very big house but it would not look big from Furnace Street as people would only be able to see the first floor level from that perspective. She provided a report that Madrone trees were disappearing and they could not be successfully replaced (Exhibit G-1). She suggested the applicants find a different replacement tree species that would be more likely to be successful. She suggested they reconsider having the proposed red bud in front of the window and the cherry trees in front. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 20, 2014 Page 2 of 4 Rebuttal Mr. Olson indicated the owners were open to working with staff to amend their tree mitigation plan to show a different species of mitigation trees than Madrone and look at the placement of the proposed red bud tree. He advised that there was not a lot of opportunity to add more windows on the front façade that would make sense. They were using landscaping to enhance the building and give it depth and texture as viewed from the street. He pointed out the landscaping trees in a front corner and the location of the slope to demonstrate that people would not see much from the street. Ms. Hastay confirmed to Chair Needham that staff could work with the applicants on additional detailing of the landscape plan. Deliberations Chair Needham closed the public hearing. The applicants waived their right to ask for additional time to submit a final written argument. Chair Needham opened deliberations. Ms. Melendez advised that the applicant had missed opportunities to have more windows and different configurations of windows on the front façade but it did not rise to the level of denial. She advised the proposed entry portico was very small and not in keeping with the scale of the overall building. However, to change that would have required a variance, so it did not rise to the level of denial. Chair Needham observed this type of site was very difficult to develop and that might lead to certain types of floor plans that might not be optimal in terms of exterior design. He agreed with Ms. Melendez there would have been opportunities the applicants could have taken advantage of. Mr. Prichard suggested the front of the house could have been made more interesting and more textured. He commented that the stairwell window could likely have been lowered closer to the landing. He thought the single-pane, single-hung windows were very uninteresting for a shingled house like this and the texture created by the shingles was quiet bland. There was more opportunity for additional detail on the front of the proposed house such as divided light windows. He noted other houses on the street were quite textured, particularly the Craftsman style house need door and the houses across the street. Mr. Prichard questioned how the Commission could accept that the `hazard trees' referred to in the staff report were actually hazard trees. He suggested rather than giving carte blanche approval to their removal or designation as hazard trees at this point the Commission should impose a condition of approval that called for their future removal to be processed as Type II Tree Removal. Mr. Boone advised that the applicants had not asked to remove them. At a future time when someone applied to remove them as hazard trees whether or not they were really hazard trees would be investigated. Ms. Hastay clarified that this application talked about possible mitigation for them whenever they were removed. Chair Needham noted the record would reflect that they had been identified as hazardous by an arborist, but the Commission was not declaring them 'hazard trees' in this application. Mr. Prichard cautioned that the mitigation trees on the south property line seemed too close to the line and could create a burden for someone building on the adjacent lot. Ms. Hastay agreed that was a detail that could be considered when they worked on the details of the mitigation plan and at the time of verification of tree removal. Mr. Creighton agreed with Mr. Prichard and Ms. Melendez in regard to more fenestration. He suggested the window in the upper stairwell, which was tall and narrow, should have smaller scale and could be a double window. In regard to the almost competing sizes of the gable roof shapes, he suggested the one over the garage could be a shed dormer which would allow more windows up there and more space. He agreed with the applicants that the kitchen wall was far enough back from the street that if they added a window there it would not really be seen by people coming up the hill. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 20, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Ms. Melendez declined to suggest denial or adding related conditions of approval because it was a difference of opinion between architects who would have designed it differently. Mr. Ahrend related that he would have liked to see more windows on the street side, but he understood the limitations and that the applicants would not have the open floor plan with views toward the river they wanted if they had to move the stairway. He would not require them to do something different. Mr. Prichard clarified he was not necessarily interested in requiring more windows, just more interesting windows, so the front of the house was not quite as plain. The window in the stairwell and the window above the garage could be made more interesting windows by adding things like different gable trim. The step forward and backward was a very flat and bland look and they had the opportunity to do something different. However, he did not think the Commission should impose related conditions. Perhaps the applicants could do something about it on their own. Chair Needham related his own house did not have many windows looking towards the street and was focused toward the back. Sometimes that was dictated by the physical circumstances. If it did not reach a high enough level with the Commission to be made conditions of approval it was just comments to the applicant. Mr. Creighton acknowledged that working with that particular height measurement methodology was a good point and it was very challenging. Ms. Melendez moved to approve LU 13-0020 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, with Condition 7 amended to eliminate the requirement for a civil engineer. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion and it passed 7:0. The final vote on the findings was scheduled on November 3, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business Chair Needham adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Reynolds /s/ Janice Reynolds Administrative Support Link to the meeting video and documents: htto://www.ci.osweclo.or.us/boc dre/development-review- commission-59 City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 20, 2014 Page 4 of 4