HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2011-08-01 LAKE OSWEGO roved
Centennial 1910-2010 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO App
Development Review Commission Minutes
August 1 , 2011
CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Gregg Creighton called the Development Review Commission (DRC) meeting of
August 1, 2011, to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City
Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
Members present: Chair Gregg Creighton, Bob Needham,
Brent Ahrend and Jeffrey Peck
Members excused: Vice Chair Don Richards, and Frank Rossi
Staff present: Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Johanna
Hastay, Associate Planner; Leslie Hamilton, Senior
Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and
Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support
PUBLIC HEARING
AP 11-02 1LU 11-00091, an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to approve
the following requests by Silver Oak Customer Homes, LLC:
• Three "single-lot partition" of illegal Tax Lots 3500, 3600 & 3700, conditioned upon
consolidation with existing legal lots;
• Creation of a total of three flag lots from the consolidated parcels: Parcel 1 (12,488
square feet), Parcel 2 (11,209 square feet), and Parcel 3 (14,100 square feet); and
• Removal of four trees for site development activities.
Site location: 3103 Wembley Park Road (Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 4300 and 4400
of Tax Map 21E 08AB). Continued from July 18, 2011.
Mr. Boone outlined the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the
Commissioners to declare conflicts of interest, ex parte contacts, bias, and their
employment. Commissioners Peck (engineering technician), Needham (retired lawyer),
Ahrend (traffic engineer) and Chair Creighton (architect) each reported a site visit.
When invited, no one present challenged the authority of any Commissioner to hear the
application.
Ms. Johanna Hastay outlined the memo, which was sent to the Commission.
The applicant waived their right to additional time to submit a final written argument.
Deliberations
Mr. Needham observed the neighborhood had a unique feel to it and infill was always
problematic, particularly when it took a form that was not necessary consistent with prior
development that had occurred over the years. He explained that he did not like the
impact that developments like the proposed development had on neighborhoods, but
the code did not prevent it from happening. He could find no legal basis for categorizing
the project as a subdivision — it was a minor partition. He explained that he had to
decide whether the application conformed to the code, not whether it complied with
some vision people had of the town. As a whole, the project seemed to comply with the
code.
Chair Creighton was interested in what the impacts of changing the setbacks on Parcel
3 would be from a design standpoint. The design was also logically controlled by floor
area standard and that might make setbacks a moot issue. Mr. Ahrend said the
setbacks showed the limits of where the building envelope could be. Whether the
house was built that close to the property line or farther back depended on what the
builder chose to do. Mr. Needham advised the Commissioners the code standards
assumed the worst case scenario and they should assume the house would be built
right up to the line. They had no control over whether it was or not. He observed the
Flag lot setbacks were new and difficult. The nature of the proposed development with
strange little flags off to the side was not similar in look or feel to the other houses in the
neighborhood. The Commissioners could only look at the standards and decide
whether or not in the worst case scenario it complied with the code. He recalled the
potential for an accessory structure had been discussed at the previous hearing. He
recalled staff had suggested the DRC might force a greater sum of the setbacks than
50. But he saw no other issues, such as Sensitive Lands or stormwater runoff, to base
such a requirement on. So the DRC had to go with the bare minimum code
requirement.
Mr. Ahrend agreed that the application complied with the code. He had questioned
whether the site was sensitive to the sight distance issue. It turned out that the actual
sight distance was greater than what was originally shown, so he was happy about that.
Certainly that would make it safer for development. As far as the setbacks on Parcel 3,
he preferred 20' and 20' instead of 25'and 15'. That gave a little more assurance there
would be a little more setback on the east side. That backyard was a little bit shallower
than the ones to the north, so it would help the neighbors. Ms. Hastay clarified that
what she heard from the neighbors was that an eastern setback of 15 feet was ok.
They were not looking for a more equitable distribution on the north and south, as she
originally assumed. What they wanted was to have the bulk of the new building moved
farther south. They would likely be happier with 25' and 15' than with 20' and 20'.
Mr. Pishvaie observed the residents of TL 4000 (to the northeast) would probably prefer
a 25' north setback because it would keep the new house away from or outside of their
line of sight as they looked west. The DRC's options included leaving the setbacks as
shown on Exhibit E14 (25' north/15' east) or accepting the condition in the staff
memorandum that equalized the setback at 20' each. He confirmed staff had originally
recommended 25' and 15'. Ms. Hastay then announced the applicant had offered to
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 4
Minutes of August 1,2011
use the following setbacks: 30' on the north; 15' on the east; and 10' on the south. That
was 5' more than the code-required sum of 50'.
Mr. Peck said he was glad that the sight distance from the driveway entrance had been
reexamined and reworked. He advised that keeping the vegetation down on TL 4200
would make it safer for everyone. Ms. Hastay reported that the subject vegetation was
actually in the public right-of-way there.
Mr. Peck moved to approve LU 11-0009 subject to the conditions of approval listed in
the July 20, 2011 Staff Memorandum and with the following revised setbacks for Parcel
3: 30' on the north side; 15' on the east side; and 10' on the south side. The applicant
confirmed they agreed with the revised conditions of approval. Mr. Ahrend seconded
the motion and it passed 4:0. The final vote was scheduled on August 15, 2011.
LU 11-0010, a request by Marvlhurst University for approval of a modification of a
Development Review Permit [LU 00-0088] to add a new structure to the Marylhurst
University Campus. Site location: 17600 Pacific Highway (Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map 2
1E 14).
Chair Creighton opened the public hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria
and procedure. When he asked the Commissioners to declare any conflict of interest,
ex parte contacts, or bias, Chair Creighton reported making a site visit. Each
Commissioner reported his employment as follows: Needham (retired lawyer); Peck
(engineering technician); Ahrend (traffic engineer) and Chair Creighton (licensed
architect).
Staff report
Ms. Leslie Hamilton presented the July 22, 2011 staff report. She reported the
University proposed to modify its 2002 Development Permit to add a small structure
called the Griffith House, which would afterwards be known as the Belluschi Pavilion.
She described the site and how the house would relate to the campus and surrounding
buildings. There were some 1930s Mediterranean style historic landmarks on campus,
but the circa 1950s house would be nearer to some other mid-century modern buildings.
It would be used for meetings and gatherings. The additional use would require 14
more parking spaces. Staff recommended approval of the application.
Applicant
Michael Lammers, Vice President, Finance and Administration, Marvlhurst University,
testified the structure would serve as an educational resource and connect the
University with the community of Lake Oswego. The Historic Resources Advisory
Board member Tim Mather had saved the house from demolition by dismantling it,
cataloging the pieces, and storing them. The house reflected prominent architect Pietro
Belluschi's effort to design a mid-century American family home. Architect Tony
Belluschi, his son, had designed the exterior spaces on the site the way he thought his
father would have. The Griffiths family had been the only family that ever lived in the
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 4
Minutes of August 1,2011
house. Their daughter was participating in the effort. The builder's son, Keith Kinsman,
was also helping.
During the questioning period, Mr. Lammers clarified that the house had originally been
located in heavy woods near the corner of Iron Mountain/Pine Valley. He described the
interior design, materials, appliances and views. He clarified the University had not
applied for national historic status because that was a challenge after one had moved a
building. The University had the original drawings and documents. That would help
students understand the architect's creative process. Belluschi had designed many
famous buildings, but this was the only building he designed in Lake Oswego. Mr.
Lammers answered Chair Creighton's questions related to how and why the house was
proposed to be oriented the way it was. He acknowledged the house was not oriented
exactly as it had been on its Lake Oswego lot. It would now be in a big, open area, and
oriented to downplay the service access side and work with travel routes and
surrounding buildings. Chair Creighton observed the original southwest elevation would
now be the east elevation. There was no other testimony.
Deliberations
Mr. Ahrend indicated he appreciated that the University was going to restore the old
house. He noted the parking had been adjusted and there was no change of access.
Mr. Ahrend moved to approve LU 11-0010 subject to the conditions of approval
recommended by staff. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and discussion followed.
Chair Creighton explained he liked the project, but he did not agree with the proposed
orientation. Mr. Ahrend indicated he understood why the applicant oriented it that way
and he thought that was a good compromise. They did not want to rotate it 90 degrees
and put the service door opposite another building. If they turned it 45 degrees or so it
would be out of sync with other buildings on campus. Chair Creighton observed it had a
door and a bedroom window facing the B.P. John Building, which was one of the most
important buildings on campus. The vote was conducted and the motion passed 3:1.
Chair Creighton voted against. The final vote was scheduled for August 15, 2011.
GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Boone advised the DRC to plan to elect officers for this fiscal year. Mr. Pishvaie
advised the DRC would conduct the last annual review of the School District's
compliance with its Lakeridge High School Conditional Use Permit in two weeks.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business Chair Creighton adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Janice Reynolds
Administrative Support
L:\\dre\minutes\draft August 1, 2011
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 4
Minutes of August 1,2011