HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2001-04-02I. CALL TO ORDER
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Commission
Monday, April 2, 2001
Chair Douglas P. Cushing called the Development Review Commission meeting of
Monday, April 2, 2001 to order at approximately 7:00 PM n the Council Chambers of
City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
H. ROLL CALL
Members present were Chair Cushing, Vice Chair Nan Binkley, Sheila Ostly, and Bill
Tierney. Commissioners Julie Morales, and Bruce Miller were excused. Commissioner
Dave Powers was absent.
Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, Michael Wheeler,
Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and his Treinen, Senior
Secretary
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
None.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
LU 00-0028, a request by Dennis Derby, for approval of a 23 -lot residential planned
development, including the removal of nine (9) trees that will be mitigated on a one-for-
one basis. The property is located at 1875 Atherton Drive. Staff coordinator is Michael
R. Wheeler, Associate Planner.
Chair Cushing opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits
to be followed. He asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site
visits, biases or conflicts of interest. All Commissioners present reported they had
visited the site, and Mr. Cushing and Ms. Ostly reported they had revisited the site since
the previous hearing. Mr. Tierney reported that he had held a brief conversation with
Mr. Stevens prior to the hearing regarding matters that would not substantially affect his
decision on the application. Ms. Ostly reported that she had at one time consulted with
Mr. Offer regarding her own property. No one challenged any Commissioner's right to
hear the application.
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 7
Minutes of April 2, 2001
Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, advised that the deadline for submission of new
evidence had passed, the applicant was to be allowed to present an oral rebuttal and the
hearing was closed to additional evidence.
Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner, pointed out the most recent staff
memorandum dated March 30, 2001, discussed evidence that had been presented at the
previous hearing. He reported that Exhibit G-4 had been received since that hearing
and the applicant had responded to it with a letter dated March 28, 2001 (Exhibit R26).
He indicated that the latest memorandum addressed the issues of use of the land to the
south; extinguishment of portions of the easement and easement reconfiguration to
accommodate existing and proposed rights of way; traffic issues and proposed
modifications to previously recommended conditions of approval. He advised that
references to "agricultural use" could be struck from staff recommended conditions. He
clarified that staff had initially suggested a requirement for a reserve strip at the end of
the southerly stub street in order to ensure that any development and annexation of land
to the south that included a roadway would meet Code requirements; however, staff
could agree to the applicant's proposal to eliminate that requirement. He reported that
the applicant had proposed that the area for a dedicated right of way be expanded
beyond that shown in the plans. Mr. Wheeler advised that although the applicant
anticipated the stub street could be relocated as far as 200 feet west to serve the
Stevens' property at a future time via the processes of vacation and rededication, such
relocation would reduce the area of open space at the site. He explained that the
possibility of the stub street relocation had not been included in the recommended
conditions of approval. He corrected the language in staff recommended condition
B(1)(d) to refer to `13(1)(a)." He recommended approval of the application subject to
the modified conditions recommended by the staff.
During questioning by the Commissioners, Mr. Wheeler clarified that the applicant -
suggested condition A(5)(a) (in Exhibit F-25) would allow side yard setbacks to be
reduced to 7.5 feet on one side to accommodate side -loading garages on lots with
shared driveways as long as the total of the lot's side yard setbacks met the requirement
specified in the recommended conditions in the table in staff recommended conditon
A(5)(a). He related that Mr. Offer anticipated that three pairs of lots would share a
driveway and had agreed to limit driveway sharing to Lots between 7 and 10 and 12 and
16, but the suggested conditions did not specify which lots would share a driveway.
Ms. Binkley cautioned that her experience showed that an adequate backup area for a
side -loading garage was 20 feet. She also advised that the advantage of side -loaded
garages was that a garage door would not open to the street. Mr. Wheeler agreed that it
would be reasonable to allow the applicant to achieve flexibility by reducing one side
yard setback, but he suggested it should not be reduced to less than 10 feet in order to
ensure the minimum cumulative distance between structures was 20 feet.
Applicant
Jerry Offer, Otak, 17355 Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, 97035, indicated that
the applicant would agree to extinguish the easement west of the stub street; accept the
stub street as a replacement for a connecting access to the Stevens' property; reduce the
width of the easement east of the stub street from 60 -feet to 50 -feet and align it with the
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 7
Minutes of April 2, 2001
applicant's right of way. He noted the result would be that Tracts A and D would
qualify as open space and 26% of the site would be open space. He explained the
applicant had addressed the staff's recommendation to plant more trees on the site by
submitting a plan (Exhibit F-18) to plant 119 trees to replace the nine trees to be
removed. He noted the plan met Code priorities to create a buffer area consistent with
the surrounding area; provide a pedestrian pathway; create recreational opportunities
and create trails and views. He noted the route of an historic stagecoach trail was
within Tracts A and D. He recalled that the City Council had advocated creation of a
pathway between Cooks Butte Park and Luscher Farm at the time the area was annexed
to the City. He held that the stub street could be relocated without significantly
reducing the amount of open space on the site. He acknowledged the Stevens family
did not currently know how their property would be developed, and it was important
that no condition of approval conflict with the future development of their property. He
recommended the Commission adopt the applicant's suggested condition of approval
regarding the stub street (see Exhibit R26). He clarified for the Commissioners that the
applicant desired to be allowed to relocate the stub street as far as the eastern boundary
of Lot 6.
Mr. Offer held the applicant had satisfied requirements for setbacks in their compromise
solution shown in Exhibit F-18. He recalled the staff had previously taken the position
that the applicant could justify reductions in setbacks if he provided at least 23% open
space. He observed that the applicant currently proposed 26% open space, and if Tract
D were disqualified there would still be 23.7% open space on the site (Exhibit F-19).
He recalled the applicant and the staff had agreed that relocation of the stub street
would leave sufficient open space to justify the setbacks and the applicant had provided
additional justifications for the reduced setbacks in his recent written response. He
noted that the applicant had explained the reason for each reduced setback in Exhibit F-
18. He explained that the applicant might be forced to design for one or two fiwer lots
if the Commission imposed the staff -recommended condition regarding setbacks. He
requested such a provision be included in the conditions of approval. Mr. Cushing
observed the applicant had accepted the staffs suggested setback requirements for Lots
6, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 22 and 23 (Exhibit F-18).
Mr. Offer clarified for Ms. Binkley that Lot 10 could not be enlarged to standard size
because it was constrained by two nearby large oak trees that were to be included in a
public open space area and the configuration of a sewer easement outside the lot.
Mr. Wheeler clarified for the Commissioners that approval of the proposal would mean
the applicant would have latitude to plan 23 lots with the specified dimensions and
setbacks or consolidate some lots with the result there would be fewer lots on the site.
He acknowledged that such consolidation could be a challenge for the applicant due to
the specificity of the suggested conditions regarding setbacks. He advised the
Commission could fashion a condition to consolidate four lots as long as the setbacks
on the remaining lots were proportionate to those in the setback table in the
recommended conditions of approval. However, he warned that additional lot changes
resulting in larger lots and larger homes might change the approved development to the
extent that another application and review would be required. Mr. Cushing suggested
that any reconfiguration to create new lots should meet the standard 15115 side yard
setback requirements of the R 15 zone.
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 7
Minutes of April 2, 2001
Mr. Pishvaie suggested a condition of approval that if the developer modified the site to
create larger lots and reduce its density the modified lots should either comply with the
requirements of the R-15 Zone or with conditions for setbacks imposed during the
current process. He explained that such a request could then be processed at a future
time through the minor development process.
The applicant waived his right to submit a final written argument. Chair Cushing
closed the public hearing and opened deliberations.
Deliberations
Ms. Ostly opined that because the applicant planned to provide a public pathway to
connect the two parks he should be allowed some latitude in open space calculations.
She said that although relocation of the stub street might make one corner of the open
space less usable, it also made Tract A more serviceable. She indicated she found the
applicant's proposal acceptable because it met a several City goals.
Ms. Binkley indicated she could agree to relocation of the stub street as long as the
existing total amount of open space shown on the site plan remained unchanged. She
observed that area could be subtracted from Lots 5 and 6 and added to open space area
to make up for area lost due to street relocation. Mr. Cushing observed a possibility that
any decision regarding the location of the stub street would be made late in the
development process. Mr. Wheeler suggested that the dimensions of the right of way be
made large enough to compensate for any roadway relocation. Mr. Wheeler advised
that relocation of the stub street would not mean that any lot lines would be allowed to
be altered and the relocation could only affect the area of the right of way. Mr. Pishvaie
suggested the applicant determine the potential area of open space that would be
impacted if the stub street was moved and add the same amount of area to open space
by reducing the back yard of some lots by a foot or two. Ms. Ostly suggested a
condition to require compensatory public improvements to the open space (e.g.,
benches, etc.) to make up for any future expansion of the area of the roadway. Mr.
Wheeler confirmed for Mr. Tierney that the pathway along Tract D would be required
whether or not that tract qualified as open space.
Ms. Binkley suggested the conditions of approval should more specifically describe
shared driveway design and side -loaded garages and she indicated that she could accept
the applicant's suggestion of a minimum 7.5 foot setback on one side of a lot to
accommodate that design, even if that meant the distance between homes could be as
small as 17.5 feet. She suggested the following language:
"When two lots share a common drive, the side yard setback on one side may be
reduced to 7.5 feet to allow for use of a side -loaded garage on the opposite side of the
lot. The opposite side setback shall be increased and the total of the two side yard
setbacks shall be no less than that specified in..." She said this condition should be
limited to Lots 7-10 and 12-16.
The Commissioners estimated that relocation of the stub street might reduce the
percentage of open space on the site by as much as .6%. Ms. Binkley suggested that
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 7
Minutes of April 2, 2001
amount of land be removed from lot areas and dedicated to open space. Mr. Offer
commented that size of area was not significant and no transfer should be required. Mr.
Cushing estimated that could remove 5 or 6 feet of depth from some lots. Ms. Binkley
observed that although Tract B was small, it had been accepted as open space. Chair
Cushing afforded the applicant the opportunity to respond to the suggestions regarding a
condition regarding transfer of land to open space due to relocation of the stub street.
Mr. Offer stressed the applicant had already provided for 26% open space. He said he
would prefer to add sufficient area (which he estimated as approximately 500 square
feet) along the existing stub street to equal the maximum potential area of increase of
right of way if the stub street were moved west. He said the increase in roadway area
would not constitute a significant reduction in open space. He explained that the
applicant was reluctant to reduce the south sides of Lots 1 — 5 because the change would
impact easements there and make building on the already "tight" lots more challenging.
He asked why the applicant should be required to provide more open space, especially
when the applicant would agree to enlarge the right of way to the west.
Ms. Binkley and Mr. Cushing observed that trees were to be planted along the street and
in the open spaces (Exhibit T 11). Mr. Wheeler recalled that Mr. Offer had testified the
applicant would increase the number of trees to be planted to 119 trees. He pointed out
that proposed condition B(2)(a) in Exhibit F-18 would to increase the number of trees
by adding two additional flowering plum or other deciduous trees 2" in caliper and five
minimum 5- to 6 -foot tall Douglas fir trees in Tracts C and B. He observed that no
landscape plan had been submitted to illustrate exactly where the trees would be
planted.
Mr. Pishvaie suggested that staff recommended Condition B(2)(a) be changed to
include the following language: "Submit a final landscape plan in substantial
compliance with Exhibits E-18 and F-18."
Ms. Binkley moved for approval of LU 00-0028 subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff in their March 30, 2001, Memorandum, modified as
follows:
• Condition A(1) is to be modified to include portions of Exhibit 25, as previously
discussed during the hearing.
• Condition B(2)(a) to be modified as recommended by the staff. "Submit a
final landscape plan in substantial compliance with Exhibits E-18 and F-18."
• Condition B(1)(a) regarding the final street design for Atherton and the stub
street to be modified as follows: The area of the right of way is to be designed
so that its area will be large enough to accommodate any relocation of the stub
street with no net loss of open space.
Discussion followed. Mr. Wheeler advised the Commissioners to frame a finding
regarding the amount of open space they were attributing to the project and whether
they would accept a potential reduction in the amount of open space as a result of
relocation of the stub street. Mr. Cushing recalled the Commissioners had agreed that
all four tracts qualified as open space. Ms. Binkley stated that she would not be willing
to accept a reduction in open space.
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 7
Minutes of April 2, 2001
Mr. Cushing recalled that the applicant and the Stevens family had agreed that sufficient
right of way would be provided to accommodate an expanded or relocated stub street
area. Mr. Wheeler advised that if future additional area for a relocated stub street was
to be achieved by initially providing a fatter stub street at its existing location, that
would mean that open space would be reduced. Mr. Pishvaie advised that if the
Commission desired there to be no net loss of open space if the stub was relocated, then
the Commission should require that the size of the street in the final plat should be of
adequate size to achieve that. Mr. Wheeler clarified for Mr. Tierney that the City
required a minimum street width of 40 feet, however, the proposed right of way of the
stub street was 50 -feet wide.
Mr. Wheeler advised that if as much as 3,000 square foot of area was to be removed
from the open space during the current review that would substantially impact the
project's Planned Develoment status. He recommended that the decision regarding the
area of the street stub be made a condition of approval of the development that would
ensure that the area of a relocated stub street would equal the area currently dedicated
for right of way. Mr. Pishvaie observed the difference between the proposed 50 -foot
right of way and the City's 40 -foot requirement could provide an area that was 10 -feet
in width and up to 150 feet long that could be added to open space by assuming a 40 -
foot right of way for the relocated street. However, he also observed that the
Commission could decide there should be no net loss of open space after relocation and
the applicant and the Stevens family had agreed to maintain a 50 -foot wide right of way.
He recalled that only two of the proposed 23 lots met the zone's minimum setback
requirement and the requirement for open space justified the reduced lot sizes. Mr.
Tierney recalled the consensus that the Commission would accept the applicant's open
space tracts - totalling 26% of the site - and the information that the stub street could be
reduced in width to 40 feet. He opined that a potential one-half percent reduction in
open space area after street relocation would not significantly change the proposal.
Ms. Binkley held that because the Commissioners were willing to accept smaller lot
sizes, allow reduced side yard setbacks in cases of shared driveways, qualify all of the
applicant's open space tracts (in trade for some nice amenities), and allow potential
relocation of the stub street, a larger relocated street area should require more open
space.
The Commissioners discussed whether the developer should be allowed to reduce the
number of lots on the site if the modified lots met the R-15 Zone setbacks, or the
specific requirements suggested by the staff in the recommended conditions of
approval. Ms. Ostly suggested the requirements specified in the table be applied
because they were more generous than the zone's requirements. The Commissioners
indicated their general agreement with Ms. Ostly's suggestion.
Ms. Ostly seconded the motion.
The Commissioners clarified for Mr. Pishvaie that they had agreed to modify staff
recommended Condition A(1) as the staff saw fit, even though it did not completely
satisfy the applicant's request. The motion passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Ms.
Ostly, Mr. Tierney voting yes. Ms. Morales, Mr. Miller and Mr. Powers were not
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 7
Minutes of April 2, 2001
present. There were no votes against. Chair cushing announced the vote on the
findings and order would be held at the April 16, 2001, meeting.
LU 01-0002, A request by David Emami for approval of the following:
Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, reported that the applicant had
reqeusted that the hearing be continued to April 16, 2001, to allow him to resolve issues
with the staff and the neighbors.
Mr. Ostly moved to continue LU 01-0002 to April 16, 2001. Ms. Binkley seconded
the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Ms. Ostly, Mr. Tierney voting
yes. Ms. Morales, Mr. Miller and Mr. Powers were not present. There were no votes
against.
VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS
None.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Cushing adjourned the meeting at 8:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Iris Treinen
Senior Secretary
L:\drc\minutes \04-02-01. doc
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 7
Minutes of April 2, 2001