Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2011-05-02 LAKE OSWEGO ved Centennial 1910.2010 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ApP'164 ° Development Review Commission Minutes May 2, 2011 CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Chair Gregg Creighton called the Development Review Commission (DRC) meeting of May 2, 2011, to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. Members present: Chair Gregg Creighton, Vice Chair Don Richards, Brent Ahrend, Bob Needham (arrived at the start of deliberations), Jeffrey Peck, Frank Rossi Members excused: Peter Scott Staff present: Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support MINUTES (None) FINDINGS (None) PUBLIC HEARING LU 11-0004, request by Dennis and Marcie McAuliffe for approval of a Development Review Permit for a Major Alteration to a Historic Landmark in order to construct several additions to an existing single family dwelling, including the replacement of windows. The property is located at: 1097 Chandler Road (Tax Lot 5700 of Tax Map 21E 03CD). Continued from April 18, 2011, for deliberation purposes only. Chair Creighton reopened the hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable procedure and criteria and asked the Commissioners to declare any ex parte contact, bias, or conflict of interest. Mr. Rossi reported that he had reviewed the record of the previous hearing and visited the site. Mr. Peck reported he had visited the site again. Chair Creighton declared he was currently working on another project with Mr. Chek and had worked with him on past projects. They had not discussed the current application except that Mr. Chek had asked him a procedural question. Chair Creighton had referred Mr. Chek to Planning staff. He declared that the decision in this case would have no personal financial effect. The Commissioners each declared his business/occupation as follows: Rossi (planner/design coordinator); Richards (certified arborist/landscape architect); Ahrend (licensed traffic engineer); Peck (engineering technician); Chair Creighton (licensed architect). Mr. Needham (retired lawyer)joined the meeting at the start of Deliberations and clarified he had nothing to declare. Erin O'Rourke-Meadors, Coventry Ct., asked Chair Creighton to recuse himself because his ongoing business affiliation was a potential conflict of interest and created a public perception of bias. When asked, she clarified she recognized a potential conflict of interest, not an actual conflict. Chair Creighton confirmed that he could apply the evidence that he received in this case to the criteria without any consideration regarding how the outcome would affect him or any personal relationships he might have with the applicant's representatives. He had extensive experience as an architect to contribute to the case. Mr. Boone advised the law did not require him to not participate, just to put any conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest on the record. He noted Ms. O'Rourke-Meadors' request was also part of the record. Staff Report Ms. Johanna Hastay presented the staff report (Staff Memoranda dated April 29 and May 27, 2011). She corrected the staff memorandum to categorize letters in G-212, G-213 and G-214 that had been submitted after April 25 were "letters in rebuttal" to the evidence submitted up to April 25. She clarified that some letters that had been received to late had not been included in the record. She pointed out that bricks related to Exhibit F-8 had been brought to the hearing. They were bricks from a wall at the site that was demolished and bricks from a supplemental source. When invited no one present challenged that procedure. Deliberations Chair Creighton observed the DRC needed to decide if the Hurd windows significantly affected the architectural or historical significance of the Landmark. If they did not the first criterion was met. If they did the Commissioners would need to decide the application based on the ESEE analysis. Mr. Needham joined the other Commissioners. Mr. Richards acknowledged it was hard to make a determination based on small samples, photographs and drawings of construction products. It was difficult to tell if they looked much different than the existing windows. The Commissioners had to trust staff evaluation of those products, which was that they did not look much different than the existing windows. So the existing windows could be replaced without a lot of impact on historical significance. The Commissioners should decide the application based on all the testimony they heard, all the exhibits they had seen and try to keep focused on the code criteria. Chair Creighton agreed the Commissioners should focus on Chapter 58. They were not being asked to review a National Trust property. He noted the staff report had explained that timing of purchasing windows had no bearing on the decision. It came down to whether they were appropriate for the project. Mr. Peck reported he had recently visited the site. He found the property well maintained. He had looked at the windows and seen some storm windows and some windows that did not have storm windows. He had noticed the color of the windows was a little bit green/brown. They did not stand out. If new windows were the same color he thought they would blend in. He noted that in Exhibit F-12, the Heritage organization indicated that windows did not appear to operate, but were generally structurally sound, meaning that most of the sashes were not beyond repair. Mr. Needham asked if that was new evidence. Mr. Boone clarified that Mr. Peck had declared a site visit at the opening of the hearing and no one had challenged him to describe what he saw. Mr. Peck had given no indication that what he saw was different from the photographs already in the record. Chair Creighton recalled that Ms. Colver had talked about the relative efficiency of how homes lose their heat. His experience was that a window would lose heat ten times faster than the piece of wall directly adjacent to it. Heat followed the path of least resistance, and oftentimes attic area was the best-insulated part of the house so the heat would go through the weakest joint around the windows. He talked about the windows he had observed on the site. The main floor windows had storm windows, which significantly detracted from their divided light nature. The obvious reason for storm windows was energy efficiency. When they were installed people did not have the benefit of today's technology. They had plain glass, single pane, windows with poor seals. He was pleased to see the applicants proposed Hurd windows, which were very high quality. The applicants had chosen them from many options and paid $55,000 for them even when they did not know the home was on the Landmark Listing. He explained the current City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 6 Minutes of May 2, 2011 technology for a divided light window was actually an applied divided light on the outside of the glass. That preserved the large pane as one insulted unit. The only thing to worry about was the seal around the perimeter of the glass. Each individual pane in true divided light windows had its own perimeter seal so there was ten times greater potential for failure. Because of that difference, it was very rare to find true divided light windows manufactured from scratch today. Ms. O'Rourke-Meadors called for a point of order in order to have standing for an appeal. She contended Chair Creighton was speaking of things that were not in the record; advocating for Hurd Windows; and giving an opinion on energy efficiency. He should address the criteria, starting with the first one: whether or not the proposal diminished the historical and architectural significance of the structure. He was addressing part of the ESEE analysis. Chair Creighton observed what he was talking about was all in the record. It showed Hurd Windows were very comparable to the existing windows and they were more energy efficient. He felt they were a good choice. Mr. Richards recalled that Hurd Windows were aluminum that would be painted to appear to be wood. He wanted to know if that was today's standard for windows, based on the evidence in the record. Chair Creighton recalled Mr. Chek had explained the applicants would paint the prefinished aluminum clad windows in order to achieve the perfect color. He then wanted to discuss what extraordinary costs were. However, Ms. O'Rourke-Meadors objected, saying that was not part of the criteria. Chair Creighton observed he was addressing Item 5 on the staff analysis. O'Rourke-Meadors referred to the purpose statement of the historic preservation ordinance and advised that price was not part of the criteria. Mr. Boone advised her that she did not need to stand up to object every time in order to preserve her appeal rights regarding what the Commissioners said and the criteria they used. Chair Creighton said he relied on the staff analysis that the applicant should not experience any extraordinary cost because the purpose of the historic preservation chapter was to protect a private property owner from extraordinary cost. Mr. Ahrend indicated he tended to agree with staff that replacement of windows could be considered maintenance and repair and the code would allow it. But the issue was the aluminum cladding. That put it into the category of Major Alteration. Based on the evidence provided he was inclined to believe they did not diminish the historic or architectural significance because they matched the original material, except for the cladding, which would be painted. An observer would not be able to tell if it was painted aluminum or painted wood until he/she got right up to it. The new windows had the same look, the same number of panes and were very similar to the original windows. So he believed the matter could be resolved without getting into the ESEE analysis. Mr. Richards concurred with Mr. Ahrend that from the evidence presented and staff's opinion the proposed windows did not appear to diminish the architectural value of the landmark. The Commissioners observed the staff report advised that no ESEE analysis was needed for the proposed additions because staff found the proposed additions did not impact the historical or architectural significance of the landmark. Staff did find the proposed aluminum clad windows may have a minimal impact on the significance, but their ESEE Analysis showed there were community benefits to allowing the alteration that outweighed maintaining the original windows. Chair Creighton noted the bricks were a source of contention. When asked, Ms. Hastay pointed out the recommended conditions of approval included a condition regarding bricks. The Commissioners observed it would require the applicants to match existing brick. The applicants proposed to primarily use existing site brick from a demolished wall and supplement it. That would satisfy that condition. The Commissioners observed that no new evidence had been submitted that put the proposed general structure design in question. Chair Creighton advised the 10:12 pitch of a rear roof gable should be 12:12 like the pitch of an adjacent house. He suggested the applicants could work that out with staff. Mr. Boone advised City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 6 Minutes of May 2, 2011 the question was whether the difference in roof pitch would alter the historic character and significance of the residence. If it did an ESEE Analysis should be done. Chair Creighton recalled when he visited the site he noticed a lot of dry rot, falling pieces and deterioration on the windows. There was a photograph in the record of a falling apart window. He acknowledged that they could all probably be rebuilt, but a cost: a benefit analysis would factor in that the windows were aging and wood sashes did not have the benefit of aluminum or vinyl cladding that today's windows had. Mr. Needham recalled at the end of the previous hearing he had asked for more specific evidence of damage to windows. The inventory of all 55 windows concluded that only 19 worked properly. That sounded bad. But when he went through the list he found that 19 or 20 of them were just sticky windows many homeowners would fix themselves. Others had dry rot, but still worked. That was a maintenance issue as well in Oregon's climate. He concluded there could be a few windows that needed to be replaced, but most of them just needed to be repaired. He could not come to a conclusion based on the evidence provided that the proposed replacement would not diminish historical or architectural significance. Then he considered the ESEE Analysis that weighed community benefit. He reasoned that if the change would diminish the significance, it would not help the community either. Perhaps one-third of the windows just needed simple maintenance. Some windows would need to be replaced but not all of them. It was not unusual to have a list of things that needed to be fixed on an historic home. For those reasons he could not approve the application. Mr. Rossi agreed a lot of the windows just needed maintenance. Some had been over-painted, and some would, indeed, need to be replaced, but not all 55. The painted aluminum windows would look good at first, but a few years later they would need to be repainted or people would start to notice the aluminum. He did not see the benefit to the community of installing new windows. It was not necessary at this point. Chair Creighton observed repairing the windows would burden the applicants with extraordinary costs for rehabilitation. After spending all that money the end product would still be single pane windows with unprotected wood sashes. Mr. Richards indicated he did not believe the code intended to force homeowners to use Nineteenth Century materials in the Twentieth Century if they could create the appropriate architectural look necessary to maintain Landmark status. Both aluminum and wood windows needed to be maintained in Oregon or over time they would flake and have to be repainted. The owners should have windows that worked adequately, were safe and were what any normal homeowner would expect. Mr. Needham advised that the DRC should not opine about the intent of a statute and whether it was appropriate unless it had to do so to resolve an ambiguity of the law. Otherwise they should just read and apply it. Chair Creighton was concerned about the impact the precedent the decision set would have on other historic properties in the city. He pointed out a photograph in the record showed a Hurd window next to an existing window. Mr. Needham was skeptical it might have been photoshopped. He said the applicant should have bought a detailed list of windows and photographs of each of them. He noted the inventory said 20 of them were just painted shut. He did not believe the applicants had met the standard of proof that they needed to replace all the windows. He was concerned that aluminum windows would have an entirely different look that people would be able to see on a bright day. Chair Creighton suggested the Commission should have inspected the site together before the hearing was closed. When he was on site he found from 15 feet away they just looked flat. He had to get as close as 3 or 4 feet before he could see the details. Mr. Needham agreed the DRC should have gone out to the site while the record was still open. He wanted to get a sense of whether he would notice the windows as he drove by. He thought he would, but he could be wrong. Mr. Richards indicated that based on the comparison of photographs in the initial staff report he could not tell the difference. That was what he had to use to determine if there was a difference between windows. Ms. Hastay clarified the photograph was not photoshopped. The City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 6 Minutes of May 2, 2011 applicant had installed a Hurd window next to an original window for comparison sake and taken the photograph in the staff report. Mr. Needham asked the Commissioners who had visited the site if they had examined that particular window. Mr. Richards related that he had looked at all of the windows. He did not know where the new window was on the house because he had not seen a difference in windows. Chair Creighton related that he had also missed it during his visit. He had walked completely around the house and thought all the windows were old. He noted the new window in the photograph was a very good match. Mr. Ahrend/Mr. Peck recalled that the Heritage organization's submittal contained an analysis. It reported that a lot of the windows that had been installed in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s were just "off the shelf" windows that were typical of what was available then. There was nothing special about them. Hence replacing them did not alter the structure's significance. The applicants proposed to bring the windows up to current standards as they would want to bring plumbing and electrical systems up to modern living standards. The code allowed the DRC to preserve the house with features that made it look historic and provided that as an amenity to the community while still allowing the family to live there and use it. What the applicant proposed was a good tradeoff. It did not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the home itself. The DRC needed to make the kind of judgment the code was written to allow it to make. Mr. Boone suggested the Commissioners to have a structured discussion relative to the applicable criteria and find out if there was a consensus regarding whether the additions met the first criterion and then whether the proposed windows met the first criterion. If they did not meet it the DRC could move on to the ESEE Analysis. In the ESEE Analysis they could determine if all the windows passed or failed the ESEE Analysis, or if some of them should be allowed to be replaced and others not. Chair Creighton suggested in that case they might decide that street facing windows should be addressed differently than rear windows. Mr. Boone recalled testimony was about from-the-street significance. In that case, Ms. Hastay asked the Commissioners to talk about whether they would require single pane windows on the street elevation. The Commissioners decided to conduct a straw poll. Chair Creighton proposed to require the applicants to modify the rear roof pitch. Mr. Boone advised the first criterion to be addressed was whether the proposed alterations - as submitted - would alter the historical character of the house. In a show of hands four of the six Commissioners present indicated they agreed the proposed alterations did not alter the historical character of the house. Mr. Boone observed the poll result showed there was no need to talk about altering the roof pitch. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners to also apply the first criterion to windows. In a show of hands four of the six Commissioners present indicated they believed the proposal for Hurd windows — as submitted - did not alter the historical character of the house. Mr. Boone observed the result of this poll showed there was no need to move on to the ESEE analysis, and no need to decide whether to allow the new windows in back and not allow them in front. Mr. Ahrend moved to approve LU 11-0004, which authorized the alterations with the conditions set forth in the April 8, 2011, staff report. Mr. Richards seconded the motion and it passed 4:2. Mr. Rossi and Mr. Needham voted against. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS Senior Planner Debra Andreades recalled the DRC had approved a color chip the Lake Theater applicant had shown them. The condition of approval specified that color or one "substantially similar" was to be used. She showed the Commissioners the color the applicant was currently City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 6 Minutes of May 2, 2011 proposing. In a show of hands the Commissioners all agreed the currently proposed color was not substantially similar. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Creighton adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Reynolds Administrative Support DRC\Minutes\May 2,2011 .doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 6 Minutes of May 2, 2011