Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2006-03-06I. CALL TO ORDER Ap?00YED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes March 6, 2006 Chair Bill Tierney called the Development. Review Commission meeting of March 6, 2006 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 besides Chair Tierney were Vice Chair Sheila Ostly, Nan Binkley and Bob Needham. Commissioners Krytsyna Stadnik and Halliday Meisburger were excused. Staff present included Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; Debra Andreades, Associate Planner; Jessica Sarver, Associate Planner, Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support III. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Ostly moved to approve the Minutes of December 5, 2005. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed 3:0. Mr. Needham abstained. Ms. Binkley moved to approve the Minutes of December 19, 2005. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed 3:0. Mr. Needham abstained. Ms. Ostly moved to approve the Minutes of January 4 2006. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 05-0082, a request by Oswego Pioneer Cemetery. Ms. Ostly moved to approve LU 05-0082-1601 Findings, Conclusions and Order. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 05-0078, a request by First Cascade Corp. for approval of a Development Review Permit to construct the following: 1. A 6,457 square foot, one-story concrete block building for warehouse and office uses and a 16 -space parking lot. 2. Removal of approximately 21 trees to construct the site improvements. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 10 Minutes of March 6, 2006 Location of property: 1855165 th Avenue (Tax Lot 200 of Tax Map 21W 13DD). Staff coordinator was Paul Espe, Associate Planner. The hearing had been continued from February 22, 2006. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. The Commissioners each declared their business or profession: Needham (lawyer); Ostly (single-family residence appraiser); Binkley (architect); and Chair Tierney (utilities construction business). Ms. Binkley and Chair Tierney each reported they had visited the site. Chair Tierney reported he had observed the vicinity and an adjacent building that was also owned by the applicant. No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Paul Espe, Associate Planner, presented staff report (dated February 10, 2006). He reported the record contained requests to maintain the Meridian Road right-of-way as a pedestrian pathway if the street were vacated. He said the applicant had agreed to such an easement. He said the Code and Comprehensive Plan did not require a pedestrian access in that area, and it was up to the City Council to decide if the street, or part of it, was to be vacated, and if part of it was to be used for a pedestrian easement. Mr. Boone advised against making the pathway easement a condition of approval. Mr. Espe showed the site plans of the two adjacent developments owned by the applicant, which were on either side of the Meridian Road half right-of-way. He advised that a small portion of Meridian Road had to be retained so the unified site plan had at least 25 feet of street frontage. He noted the applicant had kept the building low so it fit the character of the area. He presented the materials board and reported the existing adjacent building featured the same materials. During the questioning period, he clarified the two sites would be separate properties in a unified site plan, and access was actually via a common driveway between the two developments. He confirmed the driveways of both buildings were pervious concrete, and the buildings were 21' and 19'6" high. He clarified the applicant proposed to remove 21 of the 32 trees on the site, and the significant trees would be preserved. He clarified the two developments would be identical in terms of use, and almost identical in appearance. Chair Tierney suggested the Findings should say "similar," instead of "identical." Applicant Harrison Royce, SRM Architecture and Marketin,2, Inc., 221 SE Main St,, Portland, Oregon, 97214, and Shawn Conway, First Cascade Corporation, explained the new building would reflect the details of the existing building. They said they tried to preserve the trees, but had to remove two large trees from the rear of the lot to build the building. They said they would use the existing Lakeview Blvd. curb cut. They said the new building would be a little taller than the existing building, but it would not be too noticeable. They explained the new building had to be high enough to serve as a warehouse but part of it would be office use. During the questioning period, they clarified both buildings would feature the same materials and details. They confirmed they would agree to the conditions recommended by staff. They explained the right-of- way was on the line between two counties in Clackamas and Washington, and the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 10 Minutes of March 6, 2006 Clackamas County portion had already been vacated. They said they had not seen much foot traffic going through the site, but they had more than enough percentage of landscaping, so they would agree to a pathway. They were concerned about the applicant's risk of liability for any pedestrian injuries, and they said they did not know why anyone would want to walk back to the railroad tracks. Mr. Boone confirmed that the Local Street Connectivity Standard did not provide for any pathway there. The applicant reported they had begun the street vacation process on February 14, 2006, but that informal talks with the Engineering staff led them to understand the request was likely to be approved. None. Proponents opponents Mark Kimble, 5655 Kenny St, explained residents used several local pathways to safely access businesses along Boones berry Road, and they did not currently go through the site, because that route was covered with brush. However, that would be the only legal pathway access because the other routes were over private property. During the questioning period, he clarified that pedestrians could walk over the railroad tracks to access another pathway on the other side. When Chair Tierney asked him what the railroad's position was, he clarified that it would make sense to provide the pathway route today for future connectivity purposes. He reported there were about five trains through the area per week and usually at night. He confirmed that he would appear at the City Council meeting to make his request after Mr. Boone clarified his testimony about the street vacation was not pertinent to the DRC record and decision. Neither for nor Against Lisa Vopel, 5655 SW Kenny St., reported that the Kenny St. right-of-way had been vacated, and it was now private property, but pedestrians still used it to access the industrial area, and Tualatin and Tigard businesses. She said material she had obtained from the City showed a future pathway along 65`h Avenue and a regional trail along the railroad tracks. She anticipated the path through the site could be used to access a future commuter rail station. (Exhibit G2) Rebuttal None. Chair Tierney asked staff to discuss the issue of the width of the Lakeview Boulevard right-of-way at the curve. Mr. Espe reported that the applicant had dedicated two feet of additional right -of --way for the previous project and the City was waiting for the County to determine if enforcement action was necessary to make the property owner across the roadway move his fence and shed so the right-of-way would be sufficient to accommodate the amount of traffic going through there. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 10 Minutes of March 6, 2006 No one requested that the record be held open to receive additional written evidence or testimony. Chair Tierney closed the public hearing. The applicant waived his right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Deliberations Chair Tierney noted the new building was similar to the existing building and they seemed to fit the area. Ms. Ostly suggested sending a recommendation to the City Council that they approve the vacation with a pedestrian easement because of future pathway connections in the area. Ms. Binkley suggested the Commission recommend the Council consider it, but not recommend they do it. Mr. Needham suggested waiving the setback requirement so there was no need to vacate the street. Mr. Boone advised the Code did not allow parking in the required yard without a Class 2 Variance. He anticipated it would be difficult for the applicant to meet the variance criteria and obtain a variance, and he observed the applicant had not requested a variance. Chair Tierney observed that if the Council did not vacate the street, the applicant would have to submit a new application. Ms. Binkley assured Mr. Needham that the Commission had approved prior applications subject to a roadway vacation. Ms. Ostly moved to approve LU 05-4078, subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would be held on March 20, 2006. Mr. Ustly moved to recommend that the City Council consider including a pedestrian easement as a condition of vacation of the street and discussion followed. Chair Tierney said the Commission should advise the Council that they had heard testimony in support of the pedestrian easement for a variety of reasons, and they encouraged the Council to give that due consideration. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. LU 05-0076, a request by Bethlehem Church for approval of a modification to the Bethlehem Church's Conditional Use Permit and a Development Review Permit in order to allow a shared parking arrangement with the Stafford Heights Congregate Care Facility to utilize 25 existing parking spaces on the church property for staff parking. No expansion of the existing church parking lot was proposed as part of this application. Location of property: 17979 Stafford Road (Tax Lot 1000 of Tax Map 2 1 E 16D). Staff coordinator was Jessica Sarver, Associate Planner. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. The Commissioners each declared their business or profession: Needham (lawyer); Ostly (single-family residence appraiser); Binkley (architect); and Chair Tierney (utilities construction business). Commissioners Ostly, Binkley and Chair Tierney declared they had participated in the hearing of the Avemere project on the adjacent property. Ms. Ostly reported that she had visited the current applicant's site at the time the Commission heard the Avemere application. No one present challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 10 Minutes of March 6, 2006 Jessica Sarver, Associate Planner, presented staff report (dated February 24, 2006). She corrected staff report to indicate the City had received no letters in opposition. She advised the parking lot was already approved and built. She reported the church had 72 parking spaces in excess of what they were required to have, so they could share 25 spaces. She recalled that a condition of approval of the Stafford Heights Congregate Care Facility was to gain County approval to share parking with the church until the church was annexed to the City, and then gain City approval. She said the church site was now part of the City. She advised that since two of the 25 spaces were required parking for the care facility, staff recommended a condition requiring a parking agreement that gave exclusive use of two of the spaces to the care facility. Staff also recommended additional landscaping, including more trees, to mitigate noise and lights from the parking area. She reported the parties planned an Americans with Disabilities (ADA) parking space and pathway between the subject parking area and the care facility site to the north. She recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions listed by staff. Applicant Chris Dalengas, Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects, 6720 SW Macadam Ave., Portland, Oregon, 97219, testified the proposal simply carried out a condition of approval of the care facility and helped reduce traffic on Overlook. He said the existing parking lot would not be expanded, and landscaping would be increased. He showed slides of the subject parking area. He said the agreement the parties had prepared would give the care facility 25 exclusive parking spaces. He pointed out where the trees would be planted and where the pathway and an easement for the Fire Department would be located. He said the applicant agrees with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. He pointed out the applicant had submitted a lighting plan. He asked for approval. During the questioning period, he indicated he did not see a need for enforcement of use of spaces because the applicant currently had a large excess of parking spaces. He confirmed the legal agreement stated the 25 spaces were to be exclusive spaces. He confirmed the shared spaces were to be for use of cure facility staff. Ms. Sarver confirmed the care facility needed two more spaces than they had on their own site. Mr. Dalengas said the 25 spaces would accommodate increases in care facility staff. Other testimony None. Chair Tierney closed the public hearing. The applicant waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Deliberations Ms. Ostly recalled the care facility was accomplishing what they promised during the hearing of their own application, so it appeared to be appropriate. Ms. Binkley agreed there was a need for more landscaping buffer in order to screen the west side of the site. She suggested there should be more trees and shrubs there and it should be as dense as the other sides of the site. Chair Tierney recalled staff reported the lot also supported the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 10 Minutes of March 6, 2006 athletic fields, and he reasoned there could be pedestrian traffic through the landscaping. The applicant indicated they could agree to the modified condition. Ms. Ostly moved to approve LU 05-0076, subject to the conditions listed by staff, modified to require additional landscaping in the area of the "Void" along the west lot line. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would take place on March 20, 2006. He announced a short break in the proceedings and then reconvened the meeting. LU 05-0080, a request by Persimmon Construction, LLC. For approval of the following: I. A 5 -lot Planned Development (PD). 2. A Development Review Permit to construct five townhouses. 3. A property line adjustment between Tax Lots 8900 and 8800. 4. A 14% exception to the lot coverage standard in order to increase it from an average of 40% to 54%, (over the proposed five lots), through the Residential Infill Design (RID) Review process. 5. Removal of eight trees to accommodate the development. Location of property: 690 1" Street; Tax Lot 8900 of Tax Map 21E 03DA. Staff coordinator was Debra Andreades, Associate Planner. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant, The Commissioners each declared their business or profession: Needham (lawyer); Ostly (single-family residence appraiser); Binkley (architect); and Chair Tierney (utilities construction business). Commissioners Needham and Ostly reported they had driven by the site to observe the surrounding properties and structures. Ms. Binkley reported she was familiar with the area. Chair Tierney reported that he had visited the site over the weekend and observed single-family homes on the site and north of the site, as well as some very mature trees. When invited by the Chair, no on present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, presented staff report (dated February 24, 2006). She reported the applicant proposed development at the minimum density of five lots. She advised that all site development requirements of the zone. She said the applicant proposed 22% Open Space, which was more than the 20% they were required to have. She advised the PD standards allowed the applicant to average FAR and lot coverage across the entire project, but the applicant was requesting an exception to that which would allow 54% lot coverage under the RID process. She said staff found the design was complementary to adjacent structures of good design. She pointed out four units would have rear garages and access off the alleyway, and one lot would have a driveway off l st Street. She said a 96" sequoia and two cedars would be preserved on the south property line. She reported staff found the exception to lot coverage would not make the project appear to the adjacent townhomes across the alley be any greater size than it would look to them without the exception, and it would result in a building that was compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. She recommended approval City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 10 Minutes of March 6, 2006 of the application. She said the materials and details were of similar quality as quality buildings in the vicinity, and helped separate the units so they looked like residences. She said staff recommended conditions called for the landscape planting plan to be slightly denser, with larger shrubs in the wide planting strip with the street trees. She recommended approval of the application, subject to the conditions listed by staff. Rob Matthews and Philip Stuart Myhre Group Architects 105 SE Taylor St. Ste. 307, Portland, Oregon, 97214, testified the applicant had designed the building to fit the neighborhood. They explained they used the PD overlay and the RID process to compensate for the fact that the site had lower allowable lot coverage than other lots in the neighborhood. They pointed out they had stepped the building along the contour of the street in order to keep the height at 28 feet. They explained they had located clerestory windows at spaces used for restrooms and closets, so a full window was not appropriate there. They confirmed they had revised the drawings to show lap siding where staff recommended it. During the questioning period, Chair Tierney asked why they believed that 54% lot coverage was appropriate. The applicant's representatives explained the R-2 zoned 5 -unit townhouse development across the alley had a lot coverage potential of 55%. They said they wanted to offer the neighborhood good market value, and that would not be the case at 40% lot coverage. They explained the footprint itself had 39%Q lot coverage, but they had added generous overhangs and balcony's that added value, was true to the design style, and required more lot coverage. They acknowledged that the exhibits had printed out in different hues than what the Commissioners saw on the materials board. They showed where the materials on the board were to be used. They said they would use vinyl windows in almond or sand color. They explained they proposed metal railings because wood ones would not stand up over time in the weather, and the railings would be black to contrast with the stone base. Ms. Binkley said they looked out of place. They confirmed fire regulations meant they needed to separate the middle balconies. They said they might be able to recess the doors, but they did not know how far. Ms. Binkley observed a lack of details in Exhibit E-8. The applicant's representatives explained that Lot 5 did not enjoy the same kind of patio as the other units, because it had to be pulled back to offer more room to meet the landscaping and open space requirements. The applicant's representatives clarified their landscape architect was not present. They explained they had worked with him to ensure the large Sequoia tree near Unit 5 would survive. However, they explained the applicant could not accept Condition F (4) (b) that provided that no fill or compaction was to occur within the root zones of any of the trees. They explained they needed to have an appropriately size turning radius at the last entry, and that meant they had to fill there, and they would also use porous pavers there to allow water to get to the root system. They said their arborist, Walter Knapp, had provided them with Exhibit F-4, Arborist Report, which discussed tree protection measures. Brvan Lesser, Persimmon Construction, LLC, said he worked with arborist Walter Knapp to protect trees on site. They found that there would be construction over 10% to 12% of the area within the drip line. The arborist suggested how the applicant could address that in a manner that would allow the roots to breathe. The suggestion was to remove a couple of inches of dead understory, put down a filter fabric, install 18 -inch deep, clean, washed, granular fill material, and then paving. He said they had to impact City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 10 Minutes of March 6, 2006 the tree that way because the lot was constrained. However, they would plant street trees, and they would agree to the condition to plant more shrubs. During the questioning period, he said they considered modifying porches to save more trees, but found the trees would be impacted by foundation work and drainage pipes, anyway. The applicant pointed out the location of the Sequoia tree and the turning radius. Chair Tierney recalled that the community was concerned that it was losing trees in First Addition Neighborhood. The applicant asked for more latitude to do the work under the arborist's supervision. He said otherwise they could not meet the condition. The Commissioners examined the Arborists Report (Exhibit F-4). Mr. Needham observed the report "suggested" things that should be considered, but did not present a specific plan. The applicant pointed to the "Schematic road profile" in the report and added that the applicant preferred to use exposed aggregate concrete paving surface. Mr. Pishvaie suggested Condition F(4)() could be modified to allow more flexibility if it specified that there was to be no fill or compaction within the root zones of any of the trees unless approved by the consulting arborist and staff. The applicant indicated that was acceptable. Chair Tierney observed the solution to getting further away from the tree was to reduce the lot coverage. He indicated he wanted to ensure staff and the consulting arborist would work together to protect trees. Mr. Needham reasoned that the applicant had already proposed to remove some other significant trees, so he should do all he could to protect the Sequoia. Ms. Binkley observed the drawings did not accurately show the dimensions of trees and their relationship to the development. Mr. Pishvaie confirmed to Chair Tierney that the City had its own arborists and they could work with the applicant's arborist. The applicant asked if that could be made a condition of approval. However, Mr. Pishvaie observed there was also an issue of accuracy of the drawings that needed to be addressed. He suggested the applicant measure the tree accurately, show the accurate canopy against the building elevation, and report if they had to prune a tree, and change its shape. Mr. Needham observed the wrought iron fence did not fit the building design style. He asked if there were any realistic looking synthetic materials that could be used instead. The applicant explained the only material they found was a vinyl product that had to be white or sand colored. Ms. Binkley advised the railings could be made less thin so they would be in better proportion to the architecture. None. Proponents opponents Don Patti, 95 D Avenue, stated he resided directly across the street from the site. He said the architectural plan was ok, but he was disappointed that the large cedar tree in the north central part of the lot and the pine tree in the southeast corner were to be removed. He said they should be retained, even if that meant the development would be reduced to four units. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 10 Minutes of March 6, 2006 Carolee Dennis, 700 1" Street, also asked the Commission to preserve more trees; to consider where guests would park; and to require a more interesting landscape plan that would mitigate the new large building. Rebuttal Mr. Stuart said the applicant intended the building design to seem "friendly" to the neighbors, and he explained they had designed the patios to act as landscape elements. Mr. Matthews said the applicant could agree to a species of street tree that would offer a larger canopy. Chair Tierney recalled staff recommended denser landscaping in the planter strip. Mr. Needham asked if the applicant had tried to design the building around the red cedar and the Sequoia tree. Mr. Stuart said they had. Mr. Lesser explained he was challenged to meet the 6 -unit minimum density requirement with 1.2 FAR and 40% lot coverage. He said they could easily have developed the site with six or seven units, but they wanted to be consistent with the neighborhood. He pointed out the neighborhood association had written that they supported the project. He said the applicant would agree to change the species of street trees and increase the planting density. He then requested that the hearing be continued to allow the applicant to work with staff. Mr. Needham suggested the amount of lot coverage and the impact on trees was more a factor of the size of units, rather than the number of units. Mr. Stuart stressed the actual building footprint was 40% and it was the overhangs that added to the extra coverage. Chair Tierney then opened Commission discussion of the project so the applicant could hear the Commissioners' concerns about it. He observed that the neighborhood association was not represented at the hearing. Ms. Binkley and Ms. Ostly suggested darker colors and more earth tones would better fit the neighborhood. Ms. Binkley said there was not enough wood detailing, and she suggested the metal railing could be painted to look like wood. She said she wanted to see more detailed drawings, specifications for windows, and a lighting plan. She suggested the red cedar tree in front might be saved by relocating the utilities that were to run through that area. She commented that the neighborhood was losing large old trees at an alarming rate, and the project would fit in better if not all the trees in front were removed. She suggested shortening the proposed stone wall, or using metal fencing instead to save trees. She wanted more accurate information about the large Sequoia tree. Mr. Needham said he liked the project, and he recalled the applicant had made a compelling argument for additional lot coverage in their January 17, 2006, submittal. However, he still questioned whether the project would look better under the RID process, especially if it meant the red cedar tree was removed and impacted the neighborhood. He said he needed to be more confident that the applicant had tried to save the two significant trees before he supported the exception to lot coverage. Mr. Needham moved to continue LU 05-0080 to March 20, 2006. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed 4.0. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 10 Minutes of March 6, 2006 VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS Inconsistencies between zones The Commissioners observed there were inconsistencies between zones. One example was that R-5 zone allowed greater lot coverage than R-0 zone. Staff cautioned the Commissioners not to debate policy issues during a Commission hearing. They suggested staff could convey their concerns to the policy makers. Wilbur Street duplex project Ms. Binkley reported that the Wilbur Street duplex project featured a spiked black rail fence and stone wall that had not been presented to the DRC when they approved it. She said the wall appeared to have been constructed too close to a tree. She said the project did not fit the neighborhood. Staff agreed to visit the site and report back. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p. m, Respectfully submitted, ?can Hall Administrative Support Lldre%winute %03.06.06. doe City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 10 Minutes of March 6, 2006