Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2002-01-23I. CALL TO ORDER City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes January 23, 2002 Acting Chair Nan Binkley called the Development Review Commission meeting of Wednesday, January 23, 2002 to order at approximately 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Commissioners Nan Binkley, Julie Morales, Sheila Ostly, Bruce Miller, Dave Powers, Bill Tierney, Krytsyna Stadnik and Gary Fagelman. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Ms. Morales nominated Sheila Ostly for Development Review Commission Chair and Nan Binkley for Commission Vice Chair. Mr. Powers seconded the nomination and the nominations were approved with Commissioners Binkley, Morales, Ostly, Powers, Tierney, Stadnik and Fagelman voting yes. There were no votes against. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 01-0066, a request by City of Lake Oswego to construct a water reservoir. Mr. Tierney moved for approval of LU 01-0066 Findings, Conclusions and Order. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Ostly, Binkley, Fagelman, Tierney and Stadnik voting yes. Commissioners Morales and Fagelman abstained from the vote. V. PUBLIC HEARING AP 01-06[LU 01-00261, an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to approve a minor modification to an earlier planned development (Skyland Heights PD 1-96) in order to remove Lot 10 from the project. The site is located at 1186 Crestline Court, Tax Map 21E 15DA, Tax Lot 3200. The staff coordinator is Paul Espe, Associate Planner. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 12 Minutes of January 23, 2002 Ms. Ostly opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. She asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts, site visits. Ms. Binkley reported she was familiar with the site and had heard the original application for the PD. Ms. Morales reported she had visited the site prior to hearing the original PD application. Ms. Ostly reported that she had visited the site and had recently accomplished an appraisal of a different property in the subject development. Mr. Powers reported he had visited the site. Mr. Tierney and Ms. Stadnik reported they had made not ex parte contacts. No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Paul Espe, Associate Planner, presented the staff report dated December 4, 2001, and Staff Memorandum dated January 23, 2001. He explained the applicants were seeking approval of a minor modification from an earlier approval of Skyland Heights Planned Development (PD 1-96) that would remove Lot 10 from the PD. He said that approval of the request would relieve the applicants from a requirement to provide 20% open space when they consolidated Lot 10 with an adjacent lot outside the PD. He related that after a December 4, 2001, approval of the request by the Planning Director, the Skylands of Oswego Plat No. 3 Homeowners Association had appealed the decision. He said the appeal was the result of Association's concern that approval could allow the applicants to construct an apartment building or a single family dwelling that was large enough to become a multifamily use. He emphasized the request was to modify an existing PD overlay on Lot 10, and did not include a review of any dwelling. He advised that the underlying R-15 Zone did not allow multifamily dwellings and the design of any house to be constructed on the lot was to be reviewed by the City at the time of application for a building permit. He said that all existing CC&Rs would continue to apply to the consolidated lot, unless they were changed with the consent of the Homeowners Associations. He clarified that those CC&Rs provisions that dealt with open space and stormwater quality facilities would also require prior City consent before they can be modified. He explained the modification request was approvable because the PD met and exceeded all of the setbacks and other dimensional requirements of the underlying R-15 Zone. He confirmed that removal of lot 10 from the PD would not reduce or have any affect on those dimensional requirements. He reported that staff found the proposal met all applicable criteria for a minor modification of a Planned Development Overlay, because none of the R-15 Zone requirements adopted as part of the PD approval were being changed. He said staff found that the intensity of use would not be increased, the proposal would not significantly affect other property, and it would not cause a loss of any natural feature, open space or public facility. He pointed out a detailed analysis of all applicable criteria and related issues were provided in the staff report. He clarified for the Commissioners that Tax Lot 1800 (the lot adjacent to Lot 10) was not part of The Skyland Heights Planned Development, but was part of The Skylands of Oswego Plat No. 3 subdivision. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, advised the Commissioners to consider the application to remove the PD overlay on one lot. He said state statutes provided that consolidation of lots was not a development action that was reviewable by the Commission and he understood that the applicants had already consolidated the lots and recorded the deed. He said the consolidation would not change the CC&Rs that applied to each of the lots. He advised the Commissioners to address the question of whether City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 12 Minutes of January 23, 2002 removal of the requirements imposed by the PD met the criteria for a minor change to the PD, and to determine the impact on the PD (e.g., increase in density, etc) that might be caused by the removal of the PD from Lot 10. He advised they could impose conditions of approval that would protect the original PD. The staff confirmed this application was the first request to remove a lot from a PD. Mr. Espe clarified that the primary reason the applicants chose to remove the lot from the PD was to be relieved of the PD requirement to reserve 20% of the consolidated lot area for open space. Mr. Boone explained the applicants had chosen to take the lot out of the PD instead of opting to add the second lot (of the consolidated lot) to the PD and modify the PD so it would comply with the 20% open space requirement. Mr. Espe clarified that the open space requirement would remain 20% of the PD, whatever size the PD became. He confirmed that the note on page 4 of the staff report that read "Setbacks in this location are 155 feet measured from Skyland Circle" referred to a situation where the entire building envelope was placed within Lot 10. Ms. Binkley anticipated the applicants might build a large structure across the current boundary between the two consolidated lots. Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, pointed out staff recommended two sets of conditions (page 10 of the staff report). One set would apply if Lot 10 was consolidated with Tax Lot 1800 (a lot currently outside the PD boundary); and a second set would apply to Lot 10 if it remained independent of Tax Lot 1800. He observed the setbacks in the second set of conditions were identical to the existing setbacks; however, if the lots were consolidated it would be possible for the applicants to relocate the building envelope closer to the existing easterly property line of Lot 10. He said development on the consolidated lot would still be restricted to 25% lot coverage and other standards (as specified on page 10 of the staff report). Mr. Boone confirmed for Ms. Binkley that a house on the consolidated lot could be constructed within 25 feet of Skylands Circle, but he pointed out that would also be allowed if that lot was developed by itself. The staff explained the applicants had drawn the building envelope shown on Lot 10 in Exhibit E-3 at the time of the original PD request to demonstrate how building envelopes could be related to the lots, and the applicants could have chosen not to show it. Mr. Pishvaie confirmed for Mr. Tierney that any lot could be potentially removed from a development if that lot was in full compliance with the requirements of the underlying zone, and Lot 10 was a conforming lot that exceeded the area and dimensional standards of the Code. Mr. Boone advised the Commission to ensure that if the lot were removed from the PD there would be no adverse impact on the other homeowners within the PD, or any reduction of its open space. Mr. Pishvaie advised the recommended conditions would retain the originally approved setbacks for Lot 10 even after it was removed from the PD. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 12 Minutes of January 23, 2002 Applicant Bruce Goldson, Compass Engineering, 6564 SE Lake Road, Milwaukee, Oregon, 97222, testified that the applicants concurred with the staff recommendations. He emphasized the proposal would not change the intensity of the development (there would still be only one building lot) or reduce open space; they would abide by the conditions of approval of the PD that had contained Lot 10; and after consolidation of the two lots any structure would still be limited to 25% of the consolidated lot. He explained that the purpose of showing the building envelope in Exhibit E-6 had been to demonstrate that the reconfigured Lot 10 would still meet the setback requirements of the original Skyland Heights approval and all requirements of the zone. He said there was no building permit to be considered at the hearing and the applicants were planning a single-family residence and not a multifamily or apartment house. He confirmed for the Commissioners that the applicants might decide to access the lot from both Crestline Court and Skylands Circle. During questioning, he recalled that the north boundary of Lot 10 had previously been considered its front. Mr. Pishvaie clarified for the Commissioners that recommended Condition A(1) was to require the applicants to show the relocation of the pedestrian path to Lot 9 from its currently planned location along both Lots 9 and 10. He pointed out that recommended condition A(2)(5) required construction of that pathway (see pages 9 and 10 of the staff report). He advised the pathway was to be delineated as distinct from the driveway. Mr. Goldson recalled the original pathway plan called for the pathway to be signed and marked to distinguish it from the driveway. Mr. Pishvaie pointed out that Exhibit 4 showed the pedestrian easement relocated further north to the other side of Crestline Court. None. Proponents Opponents Dave Long,, 18044 S. Skyland Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, presented an aerial photograph of the area (Exhibit E-9). He pointed out lots in his subdivision were acre - sized and featured setbacks that assured privacy for the residents. He worried that consolidation of the applicants' lots would allow them to construct a 13,000 square foot house that would adversely impact his and his neighbors' homes. Mr. Boone advised that even if the two lots were consolidated for zoning purposes, each parcel would still be subject to the CC&Rs of each subdivision. He advised the Commissioners to consider the application based on applicable criteria. Ms. Binkley advised that any house to be constructed on the consolidated lots would be reviewed by the Building Division during the building permit process. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 12 Minutes of January 23, 2002 Teresa Morse 18048 S. Skyland Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, indicated her neighbors in the Skylands of Lake Oswego #3 had relied on the conditions of approval of the original Skyland Heights PD until they saw the applicants' plans for a 12,000 square foot, 41 -foot high house on Lot 10. She asked for assurance that if Lot 10 was allowed to be removed from the PD, the lot would continue to be required to comply with the subdivision's CC&Rs. Mr. Boone advised that approval of the application would not change the CC&Rs. He further advised that enforcement of the CC&Rs (which were a private agreement between the homeowners in the subdivision) was the responsibility of the homeowners association and they could bring an enforcement action related to the CC&Rs to the Circuit Court. The Commissioners observed that the zone's regulations would allow a sizeable (perhaps 10,000 to 12,000 square foot) house on each of the two lots. The staff confirmed that the original conditions of approval of the PD restricted development to 25% lot coverage and a building height of 35 feet (as measured from grade to the midpoint of the roofline). Ms. Binkley noted that measurement method could allow a house with a pitched roof peak that was higher than 35 feet. She recalled that the City was currently considering how to address the issue of large houses on small lots. John DeCosta, 18041 Skyland Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that any building on Lot 68 of the Skylands of Lake Oswego Plat No. 3 was prohibited by a deed restriction and he explained that lot was a wetland. He recalled the homeowners had agreed to allow a sewer easement through the lot and construction of that facility had resulted in the loss of three ancient trees. He said if the applicants were allowed to locate their building envelope on the hillside boundary line between Lots 10 and 68, the new structure would impose on three nearby residences and adversely impact the neighborhood. Mr. Boone clarified for the Commissioners that the issue to be considered was whether removal of Lot 10 from the PD would affect the PD, and not whether it would affect other nearby properties, unless they found that the other properties relied on the PD in some manner. However, he noted that was not likely because the Skyland Heights PD had been created after the Skylands of Lake Oswego #3. He further advised that if subdivision CC&Rs made Lot 68 unbuildable, that was a private matter that could be adjudicated by the Circuit Court, but not the Commission. He explained that at the time of an application for a building permit, the Building Division would apply the City's resource protection standards, if there were any City -inventoried resources on the site. Mr. DeCosta indicated that the neighbors would accept a plan for a building envelope that stayed in the same location as it was shown within the PD, but if Commission approval of the application resulted in relocation of the envelope toward the easterly lot line, they would be forced into court action to prevent construction of a 44 -foot tall house on the lot line. Bruce Kerr, 18210 Crestline Drive, Lake Oswego, 97034, related that he had previously served as homeowner's association president. He argued that because the City had created an island annexation by approving a PD that was a mile outside the City limits, this was a special situation that required the Commission to make a special interpretation of the rules. He asked the Commission to deny the application. He City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 12 Minutes of January 23, 2002 stressed that the open space that was planned in the Skyland Heights PD was important to area residents. Harold H. Morley, 18016 S. Skyland Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that his property was adjacent to the consolidated lots. He pointed out a letter in opposition to the proposal contained 42 signatures (Exhibit G 10 1 and Exhibit F-14). He said a report of a purported Skyland Heights board meeting did not include the date of the meeting, the location of the meeting, or meeting minutes. He worried that removing lots from approved PDs could allow developers to expand the PDs without expanding their green space. He said that the Skylands of Oswego #3 Homeowners Association CC&Rs prohibited building on Lot 68, as well as egress and ingress over it to any other lot not on Skylands Circle. He anticipated that all access, including construction access, would be focused along one driveway, 230 truckloads of dirt would be trucked out, 50-70 truckloads of concrete would be driven in and tradesman and building supply vehicles would use one small driveway. He said that would impact the surrounding neighbors. Terry Cone, 18049 Skyland Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated he was chair of the Skylands of Oswego 3 Homeowners Association and speaking on behalf of the Association. He reported that the applicants had submitted a building plan to the City that showed a 12,500 square foot, 10 -bathroom, zero lot line house. He questioned why the City had not rejected the plan. He stressed that two-thirds of the consolidated lot was within the Skylands of Oswego 3. He presented slides (Exhibit E-10) and pointed to two lots he owned that were inside and outside of the City. He said he would never request that one be removed from the City. He reported that although the applicants had met with a senior citizen facility that was within 300 feet of the site, they had not consulted his Association. He recalled his experience with the City of West Linn was that the staff there would ask an applicant with a plan that did not conform to local CC&Rs to return with a proposal that would conform to them. He observed that the issue of "monster mansions" was a nationwide problem. Mr. Boone clarified for Ms. Binkley that if the Commission did not approve the application, the consolidated lot's setbacks would still be measured from the PD boundary and the Lot 10 setbacks would have to remain where they were. He also confirmed that a determination as to whether Lot 68 was buildable or not would be made during the Building Permit process, but if the zone permitted building on that lot, but the CC&Rs did not, it would be up to the homeowners' association to litigate the issue. Ms. Binkley identified the issue at hand was whether to retain the 30 -foot easterly setback on Lot 10. Ms. Binkley and Ms. Ostly observed that the Commission did not have authority to address consolidation of the lots or the size of a future house on the site. Ms. Ostly recalled the applicants did not plan to build on the lower lot (Lot 68). The Commissioners observed that Mr. Cone had not explained what relationship his slide presentation had to the criteria for review of the application. Ms. Morales assured him the Commissioners were aware of the terrain, roof heights and housing in the area when they approved the original PD application. Mr. Boone advised that the homeowners' association should consult their attorney for advice regarding how to enforce their CC&Rs. Mr. Powers said he understood the opponents' frustration with City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 12 Minutes of January 23, 2002 the process, however he reminded them that the Commission was not authorized to review a building's footprint, square footage or height at the current hearing. Ms. Binkley indicated she appreciated the information provided by the opponents, but she stressed that the zone and the Code would govern the size of a structure on the site. Mark Inglis, 18058 S. Skyland Circle (Lot 83, Skylands of Oswego #3) Lake Oswego, 97034, said he lived directly east of Tax Lot 1800. He asked the Commissioners to specify in any approval that the footprint of the house was to conform to the original 30 -foot setback along what was the former easterly property line of Lot 10. He said he had purchased his property with the understanding (from the deed restrictions) that Lot 68 was unbuildable and it was unfair to his family and others who had made decisions to buy or remodel homes around that parcel to say that setback was no longer important. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners that the Commission could impose that type of condition of approval, if they found that condition was necessary to prevent an adverse impact created by the approval without that condition. He advised them to first determine whether the requested modification of the PD satisfied all four criteria outright and then impose a condition if it did not satisfy the criteria, but could if the condition was imposed on the site. He saw the issue to be determined as whether approval would significantly affect "other property" and then what "other property" meant. He advised that the CC&Rs would not be changed by approval He noted that because the variance process and modification processes were available to property owners neighbors could never be guaranteed that a lot was unbuildable. He clarified for Mr. Tierney that after consolidation of two buildable City lots, the consolidated lot was treated as one lot, setbacks were measured from the edges of the consolidated lot, the lot coverage limit was applied to the combined lot, and a structure could be constructed on the edge of the former boundary line between the lots. Mr. Pishvaie clarified that the City had never had a policy to implement or enforce private CC&Rs. Mr. Boone noted there were defenses available to enforcement of CC&Rs and the City was not going to decide how a judge would rule on an issue that arose regarding a private contract between a homeowner and the homeowners association. Scott Burg, 18014 S. Skyland Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified he would never have purchased his residence if he had known that an apartment building would be constructed below his property. He pointed out in a portion of the Skylands of Oswego 3 CC&Rs (Exhibit F-15) that "No building site or portion thereof shall be used as a public or private road." Susan Welch, 18010 S. Skyland Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated she lived directly north of Lot 68. She explained she had moved to the neighborhood to enjoy its open space and had relied on the CC&Rs to keep it that way. She recalled that before Skyland Heights was developed she had observed a lot of wildlife on her property and on Lot 68. She testified that lot contained six 100 -foot Douglas fir trees that had been damaged by the developer during sewer construction. She clarified that an arborist had reported root damage and most of the impacted trees were already dead. She said the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 12 Minutes of January 23, 2002 City had not fined the developer or taken any other action. She encouraged the City to take a stance to protect the natural space. She noted the lot contained a natural spring that fed a creek that passed her residence. She reported that the neighborhood had asked the Army Corps of Engineers to assess the lot and she asked that the City take no action until the Corps issued their report. Frank Nance, 18042 S. Skyland Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, reported that he had recently moved to the area and received a copy of the Association's deed restrictions. He asked the City to live by the law. Bob Augosten, 18028 S. Skyland Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated he owned Tax Lot 2300. He held that approval of the application would significantly affect other property. He stressed that he had built his home 13 years ago in accordance with the CC&Rs. He related he enjoyed the peaceful and pristine nature of a community that generated a minimal amount of vehicle traffic. He observed the common theme of home design in the community was that they all visually blended into the environment. He worried that if the City allowed Lot 10 to be removed from Skyland Heights that would adversely impact his community's visual aesthetics. He reported that the Skylands of Oswego 3 occasionally experienced power outages and he worried the applicants' development would increase that impact and disturb the peace in the area. He also worried that the new development would feature noisy talking type burglar alarms and high intensity lighting security systems. He anticipated the applicants' development would be served by a large number of maintenance people with large and noisy vehicles and equipment and who would park their vehicles in the neighborhood and generate additional traffic. He asked the Commission to deny the application. Tony Gubanc, 18036 S. Skyland Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified he had resided in the area for 25 years. He asked the Commission to ensure the CC&Rs would not be violated and to deny the application. Scott Kiever, 17660 S. Wayside Lane, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated he resided about 200 yards north of the proposed development. He explained that he was president of the Skylands Neighborhood Association, which represented Skylands 1, 2 and 3. He asked the City to deny or delay the application in order to allow time for his Association to discuss the proposal. He explained his Association had not been notified of the application or invited to participate in any neighborhood meetings. He clarified for the Commissioners and the staff that his was an incorporated neighborhood association. The staff observed that the City had mailed notice to Mr. Cone, Chair of the Skyland Community Planning Organization (Skyland CPO), which was the organization that was recognized by the City for notification purposes. They also observed that notice of the neighborhood meeting had been mailed to Bruce Kerr, Skylands Neighborhood Association, on January 25, 2002, because Mr. Kerr had been listed as chair of that association on the City's public notice mailing list. Mr. Kiever explained he had held that position for over a year. The staff explained that neighborhood associations typically contacted the City to update the mailing list. They also explained the City recognized neighborhood associations for the purpose of citizen participation, but did not recognize homeowners' associations. Mr. Binkley observed the record showed a Skyland of Oswego 3 homeowners association meeting was held on October 24, 2001. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 12 Minutes of January 23, 2002 Mr. Kiever explained that was a homeowners' association whereas his was the neighborhood association that should have been involved in the process. Mr. Boone observed that although there might have been an error made in the notification process, the neighborhood association was represented at the hearing and had an opportunity to raise whatever issues they desired to raise and to request a continuance or for the record be left open for an additional seven days for submission of additional written testimony or evidence. Mr. Kiever requested that the hearing be continued. He said his Association was concerned that approval of the application would set a precedent that would create a two-tiered development system and allow a developer to remove a site from previously approved conditions of approval. He also indicated he believed that removal of the lot from the PD would impact the homeowners' CC&Rs because it would change the configuration and character of the Skylands Neighborhood, and eliminate consistent standards that assured a stable pattern of intensity and development there. Karen Weaber, 18290 Crestline Drive, Lake Oswego, 97034, held that the City should not accept an annexation under one set of criteria and then make exceptions to it later. She said she believed that Lot 68 had not been included in the original annexation, but had been added later. The Commissioners clarified for Ms. Weaber that Lot 68 had never been a part of the Skyland Heights PD that was the subject of their current review, and the proposal they were considering at the hearing was to remove Lot 10 from that PD. They also explained that if Lot 10 was removed from the PD it would still be in the City and in the R-15 Zone. Mr. Boone explained that after approval of the application to remove Lot 10 from the PD the lot would be regulated by the R-15 Zone, and not the PD overlay. Ms. Weaber expressed her concern that other lot owners would also request their parcels be removed from the PD. Ms. Binkley acknowledged that the Commissioners were considering a proposal that was the first of its kind in the City and how the removal affected the original PD was the issue to be addressed. Mr. Espe clarified for the Commissioners that although the creation of the PD had allowed the developer some flexibility in setback requirements on individual lots within the PD, the subject PD exceeded all of the lot coverage and setback standards of the underlying zone and that would not change if the subject lot or all of the lots in the PD reverted back to the underlying zone. He advised that in that even the open space would be retained and the R-15 Zoning would allow the lot owners to build some relatively large houses on the lots. Mr. Pishvaie advised that the larger [than zone required] setbacks imposed on the lots within the PD were to be retained if removal of the lot was approved, the PD's CC&Rs would still apply to Lot 10, and that lot was to continue to participate in maintenance of the Skyland Heights PD open space. He observed that the lot's north, south and west setbacks would remain the same as they were within the PD and the only change that would result from approval of the application was that the developer could potentially be allowed a larger building envelope by expanding the envelope 30 additional feet east. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 12 Minutes of January 23, 2002 Ms. Weaber suggested that the Commission deny the application on the basis that it was not a single-family dwelling. The Commissioners explained that they were not hearing a proposal for improvements, just the removal of the land from the PD. Mr. Boone explained that when someone applied for a building permit, the City reviewed the proposed design to see if it met the City's standards. He said if the owner designed or retrofitted the building to something that did not conform to the regulations of the zone (e.g., a multifamily dwelling), the City could enforce that zoning violation. *Ms. Morales left the meeting at 9:20 PM. Mr. Boone advised her to listen to the taped record of the remainder of the meeting. Dyke Vandenberg, 18034 S. Skyland Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, held the issue was encroachment on the unbuildable lot [Lot 68] due to the loss of the 30 -foot east setback on Lot 10. He cautioned the Commission not to jeopardize any future association action to enforce their CC&Rs on Lot 68. Kevin Welch, 18010 Skyland Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, explained that although he had no objection to a home being built on the site, the home that was being proposed was ridiculous. He indicated he objected to the applicants' plan to change their home's front yard from along Crestline Court to along Skyland Circle. He asked if the Commissioners had visited the consolidated lot. He asked them to deny the application based on what they would not accept next to their own properties. Tony Seashore, 18022 S. Skyland Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated his 2.66 -acre property overlooked the subject parcel. He estimated he could build a 35,000 square foot house on his lot that conformed to the 25% lot coverage requirment. He indicated the proposal did not make sense and he believed the applicants were proposing to change the rules in order to be allowed to build a big house on their lot. Sharon Sides, 180050 S. Skyland Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, related she belonged to the Skylands Neighborhood Assocation and she appreciated the legal protection provided by the CC&Rs. She explained that her 4,300 square foot home did not look large from the street because it was set back from the street and well landscaped. She recalled the Welch's had been impacted by the loss of trees during construction of the sewer line. She said Skyland Circle was a narrow, unlit, tree -lined roadway with no sidewalks and the neighborhood residents liked it that way. She anticipated that construction traffic to the site would impede residents' access to the community and endanger children on bicycles. She also anticipated a 12,000 square foot dwelling that was 41 feet tall would impact the residents of Skyland Circle. She said it would exceed their 17 -foot height restriction by 24 feet and did not conform to the setbacks. Ms. Binkley reminded those present that the Commission was not considering a proposal for a house on the site. She predicted that the lots would be consolidated and there would be a house constructed on the site, no matter how the Commission addressed the current request. Mr. DeCosta (using time yielded by Ann Gubanc) recalled the applicants' representative had testified they would agree to apply both sets of CC&Rs to the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 12 Minutes of January 23, 2002 consolidated site. He said the neighbors would appreciate it if they also retained the old building envelope. He asked the Commission to maintain the 30 -foot easterly setback on Lot 10. He held that the applicants had created one consolidated lot and that entire lot should be subject to the CC&Rs of both Skylands of Oswego 3 and Skyland Heights. He indicated that the Commission would have the blessing of the residents if they preserved the 30 -foot setback, otherwise the homeowners' association would take other action. None. Neither for nor Against Rebuttal Mr. Goldson stated the applicants would abide by the PD requirements for the Lot 10 portion of the consolidated lot, and would not request to be released from the CC&Rs on the Lot 68 portion. He observed that Lot 68 had never been identified as an "open space" in the CC&Rs. He said there should to be a way to redevelop property without being locked into the previously approved configuration forever, and the application met the requirements of the City Code for removal of the lot from the PD. He reported that the two lots had already been consolidated and the applicants were only asking to apply setbacks that were allowed under the Code. He stated that the applicants did not have an active building permit application filed with the City, although he acknowledged they had submitted one at a previous time. He indicated that the Commission was not authorized to review a building on the site at the current hearing. He said the applicants were not requesting to be allowed to establish setbacks that were less than the R-15 Zone required and they believed a more favorable location (that would have less impact to the neighborhood and environment) for a house was nearer the boundary between Lots 10 and 68. He held there had to be a procedure to replatt, re -subdivide and reconfigure land. He said the application met all requirements and did not increase the intensity of use or change the zoning, and it made a very small change to the PD. He asked for the opportunity to respond to the opposition if a continuance was granted. Mr. Boone recommended that the Commission allow the record to remain open for at least seven days to allow any participant (defined as anyone who had already testified) to submit additional written evidence; then to provide another period of time in which participants could respond to any new issues raised in the first period. He noted that after the next hearing the applicant would be allowed to request another seven days in which to submit a final written argument. Mr. Tierney moved to continue AP 01-06[LU 01-0026] to February 4, 2002 and leave the record open for additional written testimony that was to be received by the Planning Department no later than January 30, 2002, 5:00 PM. Rebuttal to the new testimony was to be provided no later than February 1, 2002 at noon. Mr. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Stadnik, Ms. Binkley, Ms. Ostly, Mr. Powers, Mr. Fagelman and Mr. Tierney. Ms. Morales was not present. There were no votes against. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 11 of 12 Minutes of January 23, 2002 VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS Future meeting schedule The staff anticipated that the Lake Oswego High School Cell Tower and Block 138 applications that were scheduled to be heard on February 20, 2002, would be better spaced if the cell tower hearing was rescheduled for February 25, 2002, and the Block 138 application was rescheduled for a special meeting on February 27, 2002. He reported there was to be a joint DRC/Planning Commission meeting on February 11, 2002, when the Commissioners were to be briefed about the work of the Infill Development Task Force. All Commissioners present indicated they would attend the joint meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Ostly adjourned the meeting at 10:40 PM. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader Senior Secretary L:\pc\minutes\O 1-23-02.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 12 of 12 Minutes of January 23, 2002