Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2006-02-09I. CALL TO ORDER �PPROoMGD City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes February 9, 2006 Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of February 9, 2006, to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. IL ROLL CALL Commissioners present besides Chair Tierney were Vice Chair Sheila Ostly, Halliday Meisburger and Bob Needham. Commissioners Nan Binkley and Krytsyna Stadnik were not present. Staff present included Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Debra Andreades, Associate Planner; David Powell, City Attorney; and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support III. III. APPROVAL OF :MINUTES (None) IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER (None) V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 05-0046, a request by Renaissance Ventures, LLC, for approval of a Development Review Permit to construct a 12,412 square foot, 2 -story office building. The existing structure will be removed along with 13 trees to accommodate the development. The property is located at: Tax Lot 8800 of Map 21E 07DC. The staff coordinator was Debra Andreades, Associate Planner. The hearing had been continued from the January 4, 2006, DRC meeting after the applicant requested time to submit additional materials regarding the proposed development. New public testimony on all applicable criteria was to be permitted. 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 reported their business or profession and Chair Tierney reported that had had made a site visit prior to the previous hearing. No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 9 Minutes of February 9, 2006 Debra Andreades Associate Planner, presented the staff report dated January 27, 2006. She pointed out the changes the applicant had made in their revised plan. She noted they had responded to Commissioners' suggestions by changing the shape of second floor windows; replacing a cantilevered dormer with a bank of flush windows; changing the shape of the roof to create more interest; and modifying the amount of projection of some details. She said the applicant had submitted a new sign proposal that placed black painted steel letters on the fieldstone -faced wall. She said that the applicant proposed a wall of uniform height, but staff recommended that it be tapered to a lower height along the slope. She noted the applicant now proposed to place the driveway sign in the location staff had recommended. She pointed out the applicant had also submitted a revised landscape plan. She said staff recommended that they clarify that the "maples" were maple trees - not vine maples — in the final landscape plan in order to comply with West Lake Grove Design District standards. She recommended more dogwoods to screen the HVAC units, which were now shown outside the building, and additional shrubs to screen the electrical utility vaults. She reported the revised design showed better proportions, helped reduce the perception of mass, and could meet West Lake Grove Design District standards. She recommended approval subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Applicant Ken Sandblast, 7160 SW Fir Loop, Ste, 201, Tigard, Oregon, 97223 represented the applicant. He said the revised plans reflected the modifications the Commissioners had suggested. He said the applicant would agree to staff recommended conditions to taper the wall, to plant trees instead of vine maples, and to further screen the utility vaults. He pointed out the revised plan showed the lighting on the building and bike parking. Proponents (None) (Opponents (None) Neither for nor Against Sally Cross, West Sunset Drive, Lake Oswego, 97035, stated that she had not attended the previous hearing. She said she resided behind the site and was concerned that the applicant proposed to clear trees. She recalled hearing that another neighbor was also concerned about that. Chair Tierney observed the record included a letter expressing concern about trees from another neighbor and staff had addressed it in their original staff report. Rebuttal (None) The applicant waived their right to hold the record open for an additional seven days in order to submit a final written argument. Chair Tierney then closed the public hearing. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of Minutes of February 9, 2006 Deliberations Ms. Ostly observed the applicant had addressed DRC concerns. Mr. Meisburger observed the applicant had responded to Commissioners' concerns related to soldier course detailing, plane changes and the previously proposed bay window. Chair Tierney thanked the applicant for addressing DRC concerns. Ms. Ostly moved to approve LU 05.0046. Mr. Meisburger seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Commissioners Binkley and Stadnik were not present. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would take place on February 22, 2006. LU 05-0082, a request by Oswego Pioneer Cemetery, for approval of the following: • A Conditional Use Permit to move an existing 1,200 sq. ft. structure to the site for use as a caretaker's residence. • A Development Review Permit to site the structure on the cemetery property. • Construction of a 13 -space parking lot. The property is located at 17401 Stafford Road, Tax Lot 3100 of Tax Map 21 E 16AD. The 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 reported their business or profession. Ms. Ostly declared that she was acquainted with the applicant, Pat Bilow, and had appraised the donated parcel for her, but that she had not seen a plan and she had advised Ms. Bilow to look to the City staff for advice. Mr. Needham declared that he had been on the site, and Mr. Meisburger and Chair Tierney related they were familiar with the site. Lynne Barra, 628 Clara Ct., Lake Oswego, 97034, stated she was a resident of the area. She asked Ms. Ostly if she would be biased by her friendship with cemetery board members. Ms. Ostly clarified that she was a friend of Pat Bilow, but not the rest of the board, and that she had appraised the parcel containing the woods before it was donated to the applicant. She said that assignment was complete and she would not benefit in any way from any DRC decision. The City Attorney advised that "bias" was more than simply being acquainted with a party, and a "conflict of interest" was something that would mean a decision would bring a pecuniary benefit to, or be a detriment to, Ms. Ostly that would affect her ability to decide the matter solely on the applicable criteria. He recalled she had explained that she had appraised the parcel to the north of the site and the decision whether or not to put a caretaker building on the rest of the site in no way affected that, or her compensation. No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, presented the staff report dated January 27, 2006). She showed an aerial photograph of the site and the Zoning Map. She pointed to the northeast corner of the site where a house and a 13 -space parking lot were proposed to City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 9 Minutes of February 9, 2006 be located in the R-10 zone, close to Stafford Road. She pointed out that Sacred Heart Cemetery was adjacent to the site to the north. She explained the site was a non- conforming use because it had no existing parking, and she advised cemetery use was not specifically listed as either a permitted or Conditional Use in any zone. She advised the use could be authorized if it were similar in intensity, density and offsite impacts to other uses specifically allowed, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and had functional characteristics that could be made reasonably compatible with uses in the vicinity. She said staff found the use was most similar to Open Space and/or Institutional use, which were both allowed as Conditional Uses. She said staff found the applicant had demonstrated the proposal was consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies, and the house would meet applicable zoning and design standards and have low impact on the land and community facilities. She noted that the proposed setbacks were greater than the Code required. She said staff found the proposed parking lot would be reasonably compatible with those at the adjacent cemetery and the Golf Course. She reported that the Code did not allow major alteration of an historic landmark if it would diminish the significance of the resource. She said staff found it was the personages interred there, and not any structure on the site, that were historically significant, and that they would not be diminished by placement of a caretaker residence or parking that would not dominate the landscape. She recommended increased screening and landscaping in front of the house and around the parking lot. She noted no trees were proposed to be removed. She clarified that adding any parking at all would decrease the amount of nonconformity of the use, as an Institutional use was required to have parking. Although required parking was typically based on seating capacity, staff recommended that the applicant be required to conduct a parking study of traditional use of the site to determine the appropriate amount of parking. She showed a photograph of the house that was to be moved to the site and reported that staff found it could be complementary to adjacent structures of good design after the colonial shutters were removed. She said staff recommended approval subject to conditions related to increased landscaping and a parking study. During the questioning period, staff confirmed that in the past staff had dealt with similar situations by comparing the impact of the proposed use to noise, traffic, and other impacts generated by permitted uses. Ms. Andreades said staff did not know why the applicant proposed 13 spaces, and that was why they were asking for a parking study based on the history of activity on the site. She confirmed that if the Commissioners believed the applicant had provided enough information about why they proposed 13 spaces, and found that was sufficient and would not generate negative impacts, the DRC could approve the application, because any spaces would make the use less nonconforming. She said staff was not aware of any history of police activity or parking issues associated with the site. She said they believed the current intensity of use - with one caretaker - would not be increased if the caretaker lived on site, in the small house to be moved there, and used the garage for parking. She clarified that the site's gravel road was not wide enough to accommodate parallel parking, but drivers did park on the wider road at the adjacent cemetery, which also featured a circular turnaround Commissioner Needham recalled seeing cars parked on the grass beside the road at the site. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 9 Minutes of February 9, 2006 Apvlicant Brett Schultz, Architect, 2646 NW Overton St., Portland, Oreton, 97210, recalled that Ms.Ethel Schaubel had made care of Pioneer Cemetery her project in 1977, and she had worked hard to restore and maintain it. Volunteers currently did maintenance. He explained that Ms. Schaubel decided to trade rent of the house for maintenance of the cemetery to meet the challenge of funding maintenance operations. He said the cemetery was created in the 1880's when some caskets were moved there from an even older cemetery. He acknowledged that he had a draft parking study he had not yet submitted that did not necessarily justify 13 spaces. lie said that after Ms. Schaubel found it was not feasible to purchase Lot 901 (to the north) for the house, the applicant proposed to locate a small, 60 -year-old house (to be moved from First Addition) at the front of the site where it would have the least impact on the open space. He added that if it were possible, she wanted to move the house even closer to Stafford Road to preserve more cemetery space. Mr. Schultz said the presence of a caretaker would help protect the cemetery and the surrounding area. He reasoned that because most cemeteries were in residential neighborhoods and had a caretaker facility, that was a compatible use. He said the applicant did not plan to expand the use beyond what they applied for. He said the house would provide a place for records, which were currently stored in Ms. Schaubel's basement. Mr. Schultz reported there were about eight burials a year (with typically three to twelve cars at a burial), and Memorial Day generated the most activity. He said the applicant decided to propose 13 spaces because the cemetery had a circulation problem and the existing isle was only 15 feet wide. Under the proposed plan, a driveway with parking on both sides would loop around the house and then exit onto Stafford Road so drivers would not drive through the entire cemetery. He explained that if drivers parked on the side of the existing road they were parking on potential future gravesites, and if the drive were lengthened it would impact existing gravesites. He explained that a volunteer currently directed drivers in and out of the site. He said the applicant could agree to half the proposed number of parking spaces if the DRC determined that was appropriate. He said the applicant could agree to conduct some kind of parking analysis and to increase the landscaping. He explained he had not yet submitted a parking study because the related records had just been found in Ms. Schaubel's basement. lie explained that the applicant wanted to provide an appropriate number of spaces, but also wanted to avoid having to pay for a costly study of vehicle trips along Stafford Road over time. Especially when during some periods there would not be any use of the cemetery, and the Code had no specific requirement for cemetery parking. He asked if parking requirement could be addressed through a condition of approval. During the questioning period, he confirmed the records showed there was an average of eight burials per year, and he confirmed that Ms. Schaubel had recalled there were typically fewer than 15 cars at a burial, and perhaps up to 50 cars during Memorial Day. Chair Tierney related that he had driven by the site many times and never saw anyone there. Staff indicated the "parking study" could simply be a short paragraph. Commissioner Needham asked if Mr. Schultz recalled any occasion when cars parked on Stafford Road because drivers could not find a parking spot on the site. Mr. Schultz said City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 9 Minutes of February 9, 2006 he understood that was a very rare event. Commissioner Needham asked if there was any kind of agreement with Sacred Hearth Cemetery to use their lot in case of overflow. Ethel Schaulbel came forward. She stated that she recalled only one occasion — a Memorial Day - when a couple of drivers parked on Stafford Road after they ignored the volunteer who was directing traffic at the site. She said she had taken charge of caring for the cemetery in 1477, after she found it filled with high weeds. She said she could not recall there ever being more than ten cars there for a burial, and on a non -burial day she said, there might be one or two cars, at most. She said there were some spots where drivers could pull off the driveway. Commissioner Needham asked her how often she was at the site; if there had been any complaints about activity there; who actually owned the site; and if Pioneer Cemetery had any parking arrangement with the cemetery next door in case of overflow. She clarified she was often on site and that a nonprofit association actually owned the cemetery. She indicated [partially unintellible answer] that she had seen the police parked in the driveway many times and that the other cemetery had more parking. Proponents (7one) Opponents Niel Farmer, 622 Clara Park, said he was concerned that additional construction could take place on the site in the future and he stressed that the beauty of Pioneer Cemetery was its simplicity. Dave Barra, 628 Clara Ct, observed that most similar old cemeteries did not have caretaker's homes on them. He said it was not a good idea to store old records in the house because they could fuel a fire. He anticipated the caretaker in the house would not be able to see or hear someone knocking over the oldest gravestones after dark. He worried that if the house were left vacant between caretakers, or if the cemetery were no longer maintained due to a future lack of funds, or an unmotivated board, it would also become the target of vandals. He recalled that trees had been removed from Lot 901 without a permit. Chair Tierney explained the decision had to be based on whether or not the application met specific criteria, and testimony regarding activity on the other lot was not pertinent. Mr. Barra then related that his Internet search revealed that a section of the cemetery had been reserved for the South Metro Jewish Congregation. He asked how an historic City resource could be allowed to be subdivided. )lJoeta Moore McElwee, 647 Sunny Hill Drive, referred to her letter (Exhibit 0-202). She said during well -attended services drivers parked along Sunny Hill Drive and in the Golf Course parking lot. She said she was surprised those with relatives buried in the Cemetery had not been notified of the application. She suggested keeping cemetery records at Heritage House, where they would be safer. She noted the proposal would remove several burial plots. She said they should be treated as sacred ground. She said the development would visually impact the site and block the view she currently enjoyed. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 9 Minutes of February 9, 2006 Becky Salsburg,17986 St. Claire Dr., said the parking lot was too large, unless a parking study showed it should be that size, She said the house was not very "historic," it would diminish the look and feel of the cemetery, and it would not look good from Stafford Road. She asked for a condition that the use could not be changed without another public hearing. She asked if the accessibility of the house and parking lot would comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). She said if not, the application should be denied. Chair Tierney observed the request was for a Conditional Use Permit to put a caretaker's residence on the site. He asked staff if that use could be changed. Mr. Powell advised that the applicant would have to come back for a modification of the Permit if the building were to be used for some other purpose. He agreed the DRC could emphasize caretaker use in their decision. He said he had no opinion regarding whether it was typical for cemetery records to be kept in a caretaker residence. Mr. Needham advised that ADA access requirements would apply to the house if it were an institutional use. Mr. Pishvaie pointed out that the plan showed two ADA spaces. He anticipated that the Building Division staff would reduce the amount of parking to six or eight spaces and require some of them to be ADA spaces. Mr. Powell noted that if the applicant decided to use the house as an office, ADA access might be required. Ms. Andreades pointed out there was to be a pathway from Stafford Road to the house and parking lot that would allow visitors to use the cemetery without coming into the house. However, Mr. Needham observed that the presence of parking all around the house suggested the house was an institutional structure. Mr. Powell observed the ADA spaces could be intended to make the gravesites accessible, while the application was to make the house the caretaker's residence. He noted parking for the residence was in the garage. He said to make the house an office or a meeting room would require a modification of the Conditional Use Permit, because a different level of impacts would need to be considered. He said if the residence had records stored in the basement (as they were stored now in Ms, Schaubel's basement) that did not change the nature of the use described in the application. Cindy Lewis, 17903 Ridgelake Drive, testified she had seldom seen anyone in the cemetery, and there was no overflow parking problem. However, she indicated she objected to the application because it was a major alteration of a landmark. She said a [circa] 1940s house did not belong on a pioneer site. She added the house was not attractive and did not fit the scale and character of the neighborhood. She said to allow the house there would not meet Comprehensive Plan, Goal 5, which called for visually attractive environments in harmony with the natural landscape. Staff confirmed for her that there was to be no parking lot lighting. Ms. Lewis said 13 spaces was excessive for the site, and it actually might not need any parking for the amount of traffic that she had observed. She urged the DRC to deny the application. Ines Boisesen, 497 Livingo;od Lane, testified the cemetery and the neighborhood would not be safer from vandalism if a caretaker resided on the site because he would not be up all night. She held the application would change the character and use of the site and the neighborhood. She reasoned that people would go into the house to look at the archived records. She said the records should be kept somewhere else. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of Minutes of February 9, 2006 Neither for nor Against Katie Richards, the Palisades Neighborhood Association representative for Arca S, stated Area 8 included the site. She asked the Commissioners to consider the issues of safe pedestrian crossing of Stafford Road; what the City requirements were for moving the house from FAN, and who would be financially responsible for any related problems, whether 13 spaces was an excessive amount of parking for the site; and whether there would be funds to maintain the site after the requested development there. She asked if a Conditional Use Permit would limit the use to a caretaker residence with a small office for records storage, or if the use could be expanded later. She wanted the parking lot to be well screened and assurance there would be no commercial use of the site. She reported Pioneer Cemetery had purchased and cleared adjacent Lot 901, then planted some trees and paid a fine to the City. She said that created drainage problems. She said the Commissioners should consider that in the current process. Rebuttal Mr. Schultz recalled the City Attorney had commented about commercial use. He said the Conditional Use Permit would allow specifically what the applicant was asking for, and another application and permitting process would be required to change it. He explained that a trust had been established to maintain the cemetery and the house. He said the applicant wanted a caretaker in the house, and if the current caretaker left, they would hire another one. He said the house was the most appropriate place to store the old records, because they could be stored in three fire -proof file cabinets; they would not be subject to excessive handling by the public, and the caretaker would look up records for persons who came to the house. He said that did not rise to the level of commercial use. He said the house had been located in the best place to preserve the largest amount of open space for the rest of the cemetery, and he acknowledged it was not in a location that would allow total surveillance of the site. He said the Cemetery board members were from pioneer stock and they cared about it. He said they had not subdivided the (non- denominational) cemetery, but simply sold a group of plots to a group of Jewish citizens, as they would to sell a group of plots to any family. He said the applicant would agree to reduce the parking to any reasonable amount, because they did not believe they needed 13 spaces. He said it would not be reasonable to require notice to plot owners every time there was a conditional use proposed in the neighborhood. He said the house was older and more architecturally significant than most of the houses in the surrounding neighborhood, and he pointed out there was another cemetery and a golf course nearby. He corrected the record to show the house was very small - actually only 800 sq. ft. He addressed the issue of ADA compliance and explained that visitors would come to the front door to ask the caretaker to look up records in the file cabinet in the living room. He said the doorway and the pathway to the door would be ADA compliant. He said the issue of pedestrian safety at the crossing had not been raised before the hearing. He reasoned that since the site would not be generating any new pedestrian traffic, it was actually generated by new development across the street. He said the site would not be changed to some sort of commercial use later. He said the applicant was sorry about Lot 901, where their contractor had been instructed to remove the blackberries, but clear cut the lot and removed two trees over six inches in diameter. However, he pointed out that lot was not related to the application. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 9 Minutes of February 9, 2006 Chair Tierney observed that Ms. Moore had testified and was requesting that the hearing be held open for seven days for additional written testimony or evidence. He suggested the hearing be continued and that anyone who wished to testify again regarding the new evidence be allowed to do so at the next hearing. Ms. Ostiy moved to continue LU 05-0046 to February 22, 2006. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote of those Commissioners present. Commissioners Nan Binkley and Krytsyna Stadnik were not present. VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS The City Attorney and the Commissioners discussed how the record (including declarations of observations during site visits) and the scope of testimony related to the appeal process. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being not. further business Chair Tierney adj ourrmed the meeting at 9:3 0 p.m, Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader Senior Secretary Ddrelm inutes\02-09-06,doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 9 Minutes of February 9, 2006