Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2008-10-06I. CALL TO ORDER City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes October 6, 2008 Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of October 6, 2008, to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chair Bill Tierney, Alby Heredia, Krytsyna Stadnik and Don Richards. Staff present: Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner, Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support. III. MINUTES Ms. Stadnik moved to approve the Minutes of July 21, 2008. Mr. Richards seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Ms. Stadnik moved to approve the Minutes of August 4, 2008, corrected to clarify that Mr. Richards was excused, Mr. Heredia seconded the motion and it passed 3:0. Mr. Richards abstained. Ms. Stadnik moved to approve the Minutes of August 19, 2008. Mr. Heredia seconded the motion and it passed 3:0. Mr. Richards abstained. Ms. Stadnik moved to approve the Minutes of September 3, 2008. Mr. Heredia seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Ms. Stadnik moved to qpprove the Minutes of September 17, 2008. Mr. Heredia seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER (None) V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 08-0026, a request by Piedmont Progetto for approval of the following; 1 Development Review Permit to construct two zero lot line dwellings in the R-2 zone. 2 Class I variances on both lots to reduce the external side yard setbacks from 7 feet to 5.75 feet. 3 Class I variances to both lots to reduce the rear yard setbacks from 10 feet to 8 feet. 4 4. Removal of four trees. Location of Property: 554 and 556 5t" Street (Tax Lot 3100 of Tax Map 21E 03DC) Postponed form sep meeting Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contact (including site visits), City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 8 Minutes of October 6, 2008 bias and conflict of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. Mr. Richards and Chair Tierney each reported they had made a site visit. Each of the Commissioners present declared their business or occupation as follows: Heredia (real estate broker); Richards (arborist and landscape architect); Stadnik (civil engineer) and Chair Tierney (employed by PGE). No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Staff Report Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (Staff Report dated September 26, 2008. She reported the applicant had not yet recorded the previously approved partition plat, which would expire on October 9, 2008, unless the applicant asked for an extension. She reported that the applicant wanted Class 1 variances to reduce the required 7 -foot external side yard setbacks by 1.4 feet along a portion of the property line, and to reduce the required 10 -foot rear yard setback by 2 feet to accommodate alley accessed garages. She said they proposed a 6 -foot tail wood fence along the side property lines. She said staff found those variances could be allowed because they would not significantly impact surrounding properties; many of which featured similar garage configurations. Ms. Hastay recommended a "good neighbor" style fence. She advised the proposed Oregon Rustic Architectural Style, massing, scale, materials and landscape plan met Downtown Redevelopment Design District residential design standards. She said the City Engineer was requiring replacement of the 5th Street frontage sidewalk, and the DDRD required it to feature brick. She said the partition approval required the applicant to plant two street trees. She advised the tree removal they requested was allowed for development purposes. Staff recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions of approval they recommended in the staff report. During the questioning period, staff clarified they were working with the applicant to design a sidewalk segment along the frontage that incorporated brick accents into the walkway of each unit and fit older sidewalk segments it connected to. They said it was unlikely the adjacent lots would be redeveloped and the rest of the sidewalk replaced in the near future. They confirmed the parking spaces in the public right of way were to be graveled and maintained by the applicant. When asked, they pointed out there was a condition of approval related to the quality of the gravel. Applicant Kevin Nyhoff, Nyhoff Design LLC, 3825 SW 34th Ave, Portland, Oregon 97212, and Shari Newman, 688 Iron Mountain Blvd., explained the design was functional for residents and fit the vicinity. The side yard variance allowed appropriately dimensioned dining rooms and side entries. The rear setback variance helped the design accommodate a below -grade storm water drywell and courtyard, and facilitated better solar access. They said they were concerned that the required front sidewalk segment with brick accents would not fit the existing concrete sidewalk. They said it was an undue burden on the applicant to require them to pave the alleyway to 50 feet beyond the site. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 8 Minutes of October 6, 2008 During the questioning period, Mr. Nyhoff observed that the front setback was in keeping with that of the house to the north, and Ms. Newman agreed with Mr. Richard's suggestion to use a non -fruiting street tree that would not drop fruit on the sidewalk. When asked what differentiated the front elevations of the units, Mr. Nyhoff pointed out one had an open balustrade and the other's was closed. He noted Oregon Rustic Style featured repetitive elements. Chair Tierney commented the units were not very different from each other. Staff explained that the City Engineer had determined that the alley should be repaved between the site and the existing end of pavement to the south because the alley would be the resident's main access to the site and he anticipated more alley traffic would be to and from the south, rather than the north. They anticipated alley runoff would be directed that direction also. When asked, they explained the City Engineer was reluctant to allow a public right-of-way to be permeable surface. They advised that he had authority to require replacement of the front sidewalk, but the DRC could decide if the brick design met the code. Opponents Brent Hunsberger, 566 Stn St., requested a continuance. He explained he knew there were neighbors who wanted to testify who could not be at the hearing. He said the variance to side setbacks and the "good neighbor fence" had not been discussed at the neighborhood/developer meeting he had attended. He worried that allowing even a small encroachment would set an undesirable precedent for other development. He stressed that a duplex had been built at 587 51h Street a few years ago without a variance. He held the applicant should comply with the zone standards. He said the proposed design would make a "great looking commercial building," but it did not fit the "cottage" and Arts and Crafts styles First Addition Neighborhood favored. Chair Tierney noted the City was encouraging designs that helped break up mass, and without the variance that allowed the applicant to put the entries on the sides, the design might be a less appealing, flatter, design. He advised the DRC had to based their decision on whether the variance would impact the privacy of the neighbors. Rebuttal Ms. Newman explained the applicant had initially intended to build a structure similar to the duplex Mr. Hunsberger referred to, but they found they could not because it had been constructed before DRDD standards applied and would not be allowed today. Deliberation Mr. Hunsberger requested the record be kept open to receive additional evidence or testimony. Mr. Heredia moved to continue LU 08-0026 to Oct 20 2008. Ms. Stadnik seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Chair Tierney announced a five-minute recess and thereafter reconvened the meeting. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 8 Minutes of October 6, 2008 LU 07-0084, a request by Tyrone and Jackie Cruze Family Trust, LLP for approval of the following: An 8 -lot single-family residential Planned Development for four pairs of zero -lot line dwellings; and removal of 19 trees. Location of property: 5248 Lakeview Boulevard (Tax Lots 2600 and 2700 of Tax Map 21E 18AC), Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contact (including site visits), bias and conflict of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. Mr. Richards and Chair Tierney each reported they had visited the site. Mr. Richards reported he had discussed an unrelated project with the applicant's arborist. Each of the Commissioners present declared their business or occupation as follows: Heredia (real estate broker); Richards (arborist and landscape architect); Stadnik (civil engineer) and Chair Tierney (employed by PGE). No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Staff Report Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner, presented the staff report dated September 26, 2008. She reported the applicant proposed a planned development (PD) on the R-5 zoned site. They proposed the minimum allowable density of eight lots (maximum allowable density was nine lots). The PD featured some lots that were smaller than the zone minimum and some reduced setbacks. She advised the proposal met the zone's lot coverage, FAR and height limits. She observed the site currently featured 90 trees, and some would be preserved in open space tracts. Ms. Hastay corrected staff report to reflect the fact that the City Engineer was requiring an additional five-foot of right-of-way on both sides of the internal street that would reduce the depth of lots. She revised staff recommended Condition A(5) to reflect that. She explained that even though the actual front yard setback would be smaller on Lots 7 and 8, the perceived setbacks would seem larger than that because there was no sidewalk on that side. However, along Lots 1-6 on the other side of the street there was to be a sidewalk. It was likely that those driveways would be so short that cars would sometimes protrude onto the sidewalk. She suggested the Commissioners consider three alternatives to address that: (1) construct the sidewalk and anticipate that sometimes pedestrians would have to walk in the street to get around driveway -parked cars; (2) omit the sidewalk; or (3) keep the sidewalk and push the structures further back on the lots to create longer driveways. Ms. Hastay reported that staff could agree to reduced lot sizes because the applicant proposed more open space than they were required to create and they had configured it in a manner that preserved many mature trees, gave residents good access to it; maximized privacy; and buffered the neighbors. She corrected recommended condition of approval A(5)(a) to allow the requested reduction in side yard setbacks on all lots except Lots 6 and 7 where staff found such a change would adversely impact large trees. She advised staff found Tree Removal Permit criteria had been met. Ms. Hastay recommended approval of the application subject to the condition of approval recommended in the staff report, corrected to allow external side yard setbacks on Lots 2 and 3 to be 7.5 feet; to require the front yard setbacks on Lots 7 and 8 to be 5 feet from City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 8 Minutes of October 6, 2008 the house and 15 feet from the garage; and with whatever option the Commissioners chose to resolve the issue of how to address the need for additional five-foot of right-of- way along Lots 1-6 frontage. During the questioning period, Chair Tierney asked which option staff favored. Ms. Hastay said they could accept either Option 2 or 3 because the proposed street was quiet, and wider than typical city street width of 20 feet. When asked, Ms. Hastay clarified there was more room on Lot 3 than on Lot 2 to avoid the 24" Oregon White Oak tree between those lots. Applicant Jerry Offer, OTAK Inc. 17355 Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswezo, 97035, represented the applicant. He recalled the applicant had revised their initial proposal after they heard from neighbors. He said the current design saved more trees and fit the surrounding area. He confirmed the applicant could accept the conditions of approval staff had described during the staff presentation. He clarified they would agree to increase the right-of-way on both sides of the internal street by five feet. He said they preferred Option 2 because it would not reduce the building envelope. He stressed it was a very short, quiet, dead end street where a sidewalk was not necessary. He recalled there was a nearby development with no sidewalks. He said the applicant would construct a meandering pathway along Lakeview Boulevard and they might eventually develop a soft trail through the woods. Mr. Offer submitted an arborist's report that concluded the 24 -inch White Oak Tree had a cracked trunk. He clarified that the applicant was not requesting permission to remove it in the current application, but might have to apply to remove it when the structures were built. He confirmed that, otherwise, the oak would be protected during construction. He said the current application was to remove only those trees necessary to build development infrastructure. He agreed with Mr. Richard's observation that some mitigation trees shown along the property line in Exhibit E-8 would grow quite large and were proposed to be planted too close together. He said the applicant now accepted staff recommendation to plant more mitigation trees in Tract A instead. Mr. Richards suggested they could plant a different species of tree or plant them and cull them as the group grew. He also suggested using a species of street tree similar to what was already in the neighborhood. Mr. Offer agreed to that. Mr. Richards wanted the condition of approval regarding ivy and blackberry removal to apply to the entire site. Mr. Offer pointed out the staff report included an alternative street layout suggested by the Engineering staff (E-10) that staff, the Fire Department and the applicant could opt to use if it was found to be a better way to meet the Fire Code. That plan would likely mean the applicant would have to remove the 24 -inch White Oak tree. Chair Tierney asked if that would create a precedent. Ms. Hastay advised the City Manager and the City Engineer had the authority to approve street and sidewalk installation. She said the City Engineer could agree to eliminate the sidewalk as long as there was five feet of clearance along the right-of-way. When asked, she said she did not believe nearby development featured a sidewalk either. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners they could influence the design by requiring increased setbacks and no sidewalk. Ms. Hastay confirmed staff could support Option 2, which the applicant favored. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 8 Minutes of October 6, 2008 Neither for nor Against Michael Stark, 5309 Lakeview Blvd., who related that he had once tried to develop the site, cautioned that he had seen indications the existing buried oil tank was leaking and the existing house featured asbestos siding and flooring. He said those items needed to be properly disposed of Staff advised that would be addressed during the Building Permit phase. Mr. Stark asked for a demarcation fence between the lots and Tract A to ensure residents did not treat the natural area as their backyard. He asked for a street light at the unlit intersection. He clarified that the nearby Erin Court development featured a 20 -foot wide street and did have a sidewalk on one side. He suggested the proposed development could accommodate a sidewalk if the street were reduced to 20 feet wide. He anticipated the storm water easement through some nearby condominiums would eventually become a pathway between Rosewood and Lakeview, and said the applicant should be required to construct part of that connecting segment. He said Tract A had a lot of dead branches that should be trimmed to make the area safer. Rebuttal Mr. Offer and Chris Harrell, Capital Investments, offered to install unobtrusive fiberglass boundary markers at the lot corners, instead of putting fencing between Lots 7 and 8 and the natural area. They said the city had no plans to extend a pathway over the storm sewer easement and through the condominium complex, and to require the applicant to build part of it could not be justified. They said they proposed a 24 -foot wide internal street instead of a 20 -foot wide street because it offered a better "feel" and gave vehicles more room to pass. They stressed the street did not connect to anything. They agreed to have an arborist examine the trees in Tract A to ensure hazardous branches were removed. They noted the city was considering adopting a "Dark Sky" ordinance that would change street lighting standards, so a streetlight at the north end of the turnaround would not be necessary. Staff pointed out the conditions of approval postponed the requirement fora street light and required the applicant to deposit money to pay for such a street light if one were required. The money would be refunded if the new ordinance passed and no light was required. Deliberations Mr. Stark requested that the record be kept open to accept additional evidence and testimony. Chair Tierney closed the public hearing. Ms. Stadnik moved to continue LU 07-0084 to October 20 2008. Mr. Richards seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. VI, GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission. Page 6 of 8 Minutes of October 6, 2008 Presentation by Sidaro Sin of the Long Range Planning Division on the City's upcoming Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review process. Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner, described the process to be used to update the Comprehensive Plan so it was consistent with state goals and requirements and expressed Lake Oswego's aspirations for the community. He explained the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) oversaw the "periodic review" part of the process to be used to ensure a few specific chapters of the Comprehensive, Plan complied with specific state requirements. He said the City had six months to submit a work plan to the DLCD to review and approve. He said the scope of that review was narrow, but the City planned to also take the opportunity to update the rest of the Comprehensive Plan, The public was to be involved in a "visioning" process and invited to identify issues they thought should be addressed in the broader process. Code changes would be adopted to codify regulatory policies in the updated Comprehensive Plan and they would be implemented between 2009-2011. Mr. Sin invited everyone to attend public open houses scheduled on October 23rd (to talk about the first seven chapters of the Comprehensive Plan); November 6th (to talk about the last seven chapters); and Planning Commission hearings. Oakridge Development Decision LUBA Appeal Chair Tierney had asked Mr. Boone to discuss a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision. Mr. Boone recalled the Oakridge Road congregate housing development approval had been appealed first to the City Council and then to LUBA. He listed the aspects of the decision that had been appealed; reported that neither party had prevailed 100%; and advised that each of them could appeal the LUBA decision. He discussed the areas of contention. The first was whether "congregate housing" meant that the entire group of residents could be assumed to have a life function disability because of their older age (as the City Council found), or if the disability of each individual resident of the facility had to be determined separately (as LUBA found). The next issue was whether the facility was physically capable of accommodating the use — whether 20 onsite parking spaces were adequate and whether the parking study was accurate. LUBA said they could not overrule a reasonable decision by the DRC and the City Council when those bodies had weighed conflicting evidence before making the decision. He said appellants contended the City could not allow an overflow parking lot to be more than 500 feet from the facility. The City Council had interpreted the code to mean the distance limit only applied to required parking, and the overflow parking area was necessary to meet conditional use standards - not required parking - so the overflow lot could be more than 500 feet away. Mr. Boone reported the appellants raised the question of whether disabled residents could actually walk 1,500 feet to the offsite, overflow parking lot. LUBA found there was no requirement to prove that was feasible for them, but they observed there was no evidence regarding whether or not the shuttle service would be effective and available to residents who did not want to walk, or whether or not the overflow parking arrangement would be effective Mr. Boone said another issue was whether the proposed building height, lot coverage, FAR, and other aspects created a transition area development that was "reasonably City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 8 Minutes of October 6, 2008 compatible" with uses in the vicinity. LUBA observed that people's perceptions might differ, and found the City had appropriately evaluated what was reasonable compatibility before granting the Conditional Use permit. He said opponents of the application held they should have been allowed to comment on the conditions of approval before they were imposed by the DRC and the findings before they were adopted. LUBA advised that participants in a public land use hearing had a right to submit testimony, but only the applicant was allowed to comment on proposed new conditions of approval before they were applied. Chair Tierney suggested that if the Commissioners were considering making a significant change to staff recommended conditions of approval, others besides the applicant should be allowed to comment. Mr. Boone said such a change would need to be codified to ensure all parties knew that was possible and to specify when the process was to finally be at its end. Mr. Boone related that appellants held the DRC had allowed new evidence (a traffic engineering analysis) after the public hearing had been closed on all issues except design. LUBA found that no harm had been done to the appellants because the City Council had subsequently removed that evidence from the record. Mr. Boone said appellants held the parking study that had been based on parking at other congregate housing facilities was so flawed it did not constitute substantial evidence. LUBA said it was not the appeals board's job to resolve conflicting testimony and reasonable minds could resolve it either way. Mr. Boone said appellants held that when the DRC heard testimony from someone who contended that Comprehensive Plan Goal 4, Policy 4 was regulatory policy that required a traffic study, that statement triggered that requirement. However, LUBA found merely stating in testimony that it was required and not explaining why was not sufficient to trigger the requirement. Mr. Boone said the parties had twenty-one days from October 1st to appeal the LUBA decision. Consultants Evaluating City Operations Staff related that the City had retained a consulting firm to help them evaluate the city's Community Development Department's operations and suggest if and how they might be improved. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:20 p. in. Respectfully submitted, tJ ceReynoldsministrative Support III L\dre\minutes\October 6, 2008.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 8 Minutes of October 6, 2008