Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2001-09-05I. CALL TO ORDER City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes September 5, 2001 Chair Douglas P. Cushing called the Development Review Commission meeting of Monday, September 5, 2001 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 Chair Cushing, Vice Chair Nan Binkley, Sheila Ostly, Bruce Miller,* Dave Powers and Bill Tierney. Commissioner Julie Morales was absent. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 01-0032, Gramor Development, Inc., Findings, Conclusions and Order Mr. Tierney moved for approval of LU 01-0032-1431 Findings, Conclusions and Order. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Cushing, Binkley, Ostly and Tierney. Mr. Powers abstained from voting. Commissioners Morales and Miller were not present. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 01-0012, a request by Doug and Jenny Delano for approval of a 14 -lot residential planned development, including two lots for zero lot line dwellings. The applicants are also requesting approval to remove approximately 105 trees in order to accommodate the proposed development. The site is located at 5373 Rosewood & 5213, 5225 Lakeview Blvd., Tax Lots 200, 1400, 1500 and 1600 of Tax Map 21E 18AC. Staff coordinator is Paul Espe, Associate Planner. *Mr. Miller joined the meeting. Chair Cushing opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked the commissioners to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 9 Minutes of September 5, 2001 biases or conflicts of interest. All of the Commissioners reported they had visited the site. Ms. Binkley clarified that she had observed the site from Lakeview Boulevard, but not from Rosewood Street. No one challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, clarified for the Commissioners that any Commissioner could enter a site with the permission of the applicant, but he cautioned them not to visit a site as a group because that could be construed as a meeting. He confirmed that the application contained a clause that allowed the City staff to go onsite that could be expanded to allow Commissioners to walk onto a site. However, he advised that all evidence to be considered in a Commission decision was to be presented at the public hearing, and any onsite inspection should be reported at the hearing to allow the parties to further clarify what a Commissioner thought he/she saw there. Paul Espe, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He related that the applicants sought approval of a 14 -lot residential planned development. He pointed out the development was to include two zero -lot -line dwelling lots. He said the applicant proposed to remove a total of 121 trees from the within the right of way and building envelopes and removal would be mitigated on a one-to-one ratio. He recommended approval of the application subject to conditions to address the following issues: 1. A City requirement for a 60 -foot vision clearance triangle at the corner of Rosewood Street would significantly encroach onto the building envelope on Lot 14. 2. The applicants planned corner driveway access to Rosewood Street (a Local Street) from one of the zero lot line dwelling units on Lot 14. Mr. Espe explained that the corner configured duplex unit was to have access from both Rosewood Street and the development street. He said he had advised the applicants to relocate that building to a lot on Lakeview Boulevard, where there would be more room there for a vision clearance triangle. He also advised that a stop sign could be installed at the Lakeview Boulevard intersection because that street was classified as a Neighborhood Collector. 3. Letters in the record expressed concern about fencing for the development. The staff proposed a condition to require perimeter fencing, except around the open space area. 4. If sidewalks were not constructed within the development, the rural street standard would apply. He explained that standard required up to 15 feet additional right of way width, which would mean that lot sizes might have to be reduced to a point that could preclude development of the project. 5. Staff and the applicants differed regarding the number of trees to be removed. Staff had counted 91 trees that might be impacted in the building area, as well as the 30 trees the applicants anticipated would be removed from within the right of way. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 9 Minutes of September 5, 2001 Mr. Espe advised the Commissioners that the applicant had the option to either conform to all required side and front yard setbacks of the underlying R-5 Zone or ask the Commission for a reduction in those setbacks as part of the Planned Development (PD) review process. He advised the applicants to provide a new lot coverage calculation because their previously submitted calculation did not include the area of the right of way. He explained the development was limited 30% maximum lot coverage, and Planned Developments were allowed to average and transfer lot coverage throughout the development instead of calculating lot coverage for each lot. Staff recalled for the Commissioners that subdivisions adjacent to and across the street from the site featured lots that were similar or in some cases slightly smaller than those in the proposed project They also noted the site was subject to minimum density requirements. They clarified that the R-5 Zone had no requirement related to Floor Area Ratio. They explained that maximum lot coverage was calculated by multiplying the gross acreage of the site less the areas of right of ways by 30%, and staff had estimated the average building footprint in the project would be 2,009 square feet. They clarified that the PD was allowed flexibility regarding coverage on individual lots; however, the project's average lot of coverage was to be a maximum of 30%. Applicant Bill Horning, Western Planning Associates, 4620 SW Kelly Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97201, related that the applicants, Doug and Jenny Delano, had previously resided on the site and were familiar with the neighborhood. He recalled that they had originally intended to design a single-family detached dwelling development on the site but could not achieve that type of development due to minimum density requirements. He then presented the applicant's responses to the conditions proposed in the staff report. Condition A(1)(c)(iii). Mr. Horning recalled that the City would not permit a stop sign to be located at the corner of Rosewood Street and Hunter Court because it did not permit stop signs at the intersection of two local streets. He also recalled the City required a sight distance triangle of 60 -feet at the corner, which he said was larger than the 30 -feet triangle required by other jurisdictions. He distributed a site plan that illustrated the area of a 60 -foot triangle on Lot 14. Conditions A(1)(c )(iii) and A(8). He asked that the recommended conditions be modified to allow a 10 -foot rear setback on Lot 14, so that one duplex unit would feature a 10 -foot rear yard setback and the other unit would feature a 20 -foot rear yard setback. He explained the modified setback would provide an opportunity for a designer to create a "quality single -family -sensitive design." He clarified that the Rosewood side of the structure would be setback 10 feet, except for the garage, which would be set back 18.5 feet. He observed that other houses along the street were setback 10 feet. He explained the applicants were requesting this adjustment because there would be no stop sign at the corner. He explained for Ms. Binkley that there would be sufficient depth in the footprint to accommodate the garage. He pointed out that Lot 14 was 5 feet wider than Lot 13 and there was no setback along the zero lot line between the two lots. He requested both the setback adjustment and permission to access Rosewood Street from one of the duplex units. He observed the staff suggestion to relocate the attached -unit building to Lakeview Boulevard ran counter to the City's City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 9 Minutes of September 5, 2001 policy of not allowing access from collector streets. He stated the applicants agreed with the restriction of access from Lakeview Boulevard. Condition B(1)(b). Mr. Horning asked that the language "suitable hard surface material" be used instead of the word "asphalt." He explained the applicants wanted an opportunity to consider other Americans with Disabilities Act -acceptable materials. Condition B(1)(d). He clarified that the applicants had requested to be allowed to remove 30 trees in order to develop the site's infrastructure, and they had also counted 90 unprotected trees on the lots. He related that the applicants had planted many of those trees themselves and did not intend for them all to be removed, especially trees along the rear property lines. In place of the recommended condition to mitigate for all of the trees (which he anticipated would make it easier for a builder to remove them), he suggested that builders be provided with an incentive to save as many trees outside the building envelope as possible, for example a provision that no mitigation would be necessary for trees removed from within a building envelope if existing trees that were 15 feet or farther from the envelope were protected and saved. Condition B(1)(d). Mr. Horning recalled the applicants had discussed fencing with the neighbors at two neighborhood meetings and planned fencing on all lots except for the open space tract. Fencing for individual lots was to be installed after construction of the homes and would be subject to a common fencing standard that would be specified in the development's CC&Rs. He clarified for the Commissioners that fencing shown on the master plan showed fencing that the developer intended to install immediately along the drive abutting the site on the west and along the rear of lots along Lakeview Boulevard. Condition D(6). He requested that the requirement for masonry fencing be limited to the site's frontages because masonry columns would create setback problems along the side lot lines. He asked that the "masonry" specification be modified so that other types of decorative columns would be allowed. Condition B(1)0). He explained the project would feature a 5 -foot wide internal sidewalk connecting Rosewood Street and Lakewood Boulevard. He observed that a requirement to install a sidewalk along Rosewood Street would mean that pedestrians would have to cross the street in mid -block to connect to the only other sidewalk in the area on the north side of the street. He proposed an interim solution that a 4- to 6 -foot wide gravel shoulder be installed on the north side of Rosewood Street that would create a pedestrian crossing at the intersection at Hunter Court. He said he believed there was sufficient right of way on the north side of the street to accommodate that facility and he suggested that it be constructed with pervious hard surface so it would not impact two Douglas fir trees there. He anticipated that Rosewood Street would be widened in the future and at that time a permanent sidewalk would be constructed. Condition D(3). Mr. Horning observed that except for Lot 14, the applicants were requesting a 20 -foot rear yard setback that was consistent with the R-5 Zone. He also advised that any trees within 5 feet of the buildings might not survive. He requested that the recommended condition to protect trees be modified to protect trees within 10 feet of the rear property line. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 9 Minutes of September 5, 2001 Mr. Horning clarified for the Commission that the applicants' purpose in illustrating the building envelopes was not to illustrate lot coverage, but to show what the setbacks would permit as they were applied to each lot. He noted that coverage had to be within the envelope area. He reported that the applicants anticipated homes of 2,400 to 3,200 square feet would be constructed on the site. Mr. Pishvaie advised the Commissioners that it was typical for the mitigation plan for common areas of a development to be required to be completed when the infrastructure improvements were completed and mitigation requirements for individual lots to be accomplished after building construction and prior to final inspection and approval. He further advised that if a builder found there was insufficient room to plant a mitigation tree on an individual lot or in the open space, he would be required to pay a fee that would go into the City's Tree Fund. Several Commissioners observed that there were currently some lots in the development that had few or no trees and where they believed trees should be planted. They wondered aloud whether to specify that mitigation planting was to be focused on those lots. Mr. Horning and Ms. Binkley observed the most significant trees were in six of the eight lots on the Lakeview Boulevard side of the project and there were numerous small Douglas fir "tree farm" trees along Rosewood Street that were growing too close together. Mr. Espe calculated that if all mitigation was required to be accomplished on building lots that would result in a requirement to feature 10 trees per lot, which could be too many. Mr. Horning confirmed for the Commissioners that when the project's CC&Rs were drafted they would specify a minimum house size and provide for complementary architectural features on buildings. He explained that the lot sizes were to be slightly reduced on the Lakeview Boulevard side of the project because the Engineering staff was requiring 6 inches of additional right of way between the curb and the sidewalk. He said the additional right of way could be accommodated along Rosewood Street by moving the centerline of Hunter Court to the west. He said the applicants planned to fence the perimeter of the entire development and he requested to be allowed to fence the open space tract to provide security and privacy for the homes in the development. Mr. Espe clarified for the Commissioners that the Code standards addressed the height of fencing but they did not specify fence design. Mr. Horning clarified for the Commission that the applicant had no current plan to install signage for the development. Staff confirmed that any future application for signage would require staff review. Mr. Horning clarified for the Commissioners that fencing of individual lots was to be accomplished by the home builders at the time of construction, and the CC&Rs would require those segments of fence to match the fencing installed by the developer. He clarified for Mr. Cushing that lot owners would not be required to install a fence along the open space side of their lots, but they would be required to have fencing along any perimeter edge of the development. Proponents None. Opponents None. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 9 Minutes of September 5, 2001 Neither for nor against Carrie Wood, 5204 Rosewood Street, Lake Oswego, Oregon, 97035, testified that Rosewood Street was a low -traffic street and numerous children played in the street. She asked if the number of houses in the development could be reduced in order that the amount of traffic generated by the project would be reduced. She also asked how the neighborhood's zoning could be changed from R-5. Mr. Cushing advised that a zone change request was to be considered for recommendation by the Planning Commission and then considered for adoption by the City Council. He explained the lot plan proposed by the applicants was at the minimum allowed density. Ms. Binkley observed the proposed density was similar to the density of the development across the street. Ms. Wood acknowledged that she understood that the property owners had wanted to plan for fewer houses on the site, but Metro's minimum density requirement required them to build more dwelling units there. Amy Kratz, 17114 Tualatin Street, Lake Oswego, Oregon, 97035, testified she resided near the end of Rosewood Street and there were approximately 60 young children living in the area who walked to Bryant Elementary School. She observed that the segment of sidewalk along Rosewood Street at Rebecca Lane was only 20 feet long. She explained that Rosewood Street, west of Rebecca Lane, was essentially a one -lane roadway where there was no sidewalk and children walked in the street. She anticipated that the "affordable" size of the proposed houses would mean there would be additional children in the neighborhood. She stressed that a sidewalk was necessary and asked that a stop sign be installed at Hunter Court and Rosewood Street. Mr. Cushing explained the Commission could decide to require the project to construct another segment of sidewalk along Rosewood Street or to expand the walkway on the north side of the street, but the Commission was not authorized to require installation of the stop sign. Matt Grady, 5263 Lakeview Boulevard, Lake Oswego, Oregon, 97035, testified that he supported the project and believed the site was appropriately zoned. However, he asked for a requirement that all segments of the proposed perimeter fence were to be constructed at one time to ensure that materials in all segments would match. He agreed the fence should not have to feature masonry columns. He clarified that he desired the fence to be constructed along the entire perimeter of the site, except for the open space. He anticipated the development would enhance the value of his own property. Rebuttal Mr. Horning confirmed that the applicants would agree to construct fencing on all of the project borders at one time, except for the open space tract. He anticipated that a traffic engineer would calculate that the project would generate 10 trips per day per house, which would make the average daily traffic load 60 trips per day. He said that level of trips would have marginal impact on Rosewood Street. He recalled that he had observed drivers slowing down in the vicinity of the site. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 9 Minutes of September 5, 2001 Mr. Pishvaie pointed out that staff recommended Condition D(6) required a wood and masonry fence to be constructed before a single building permit was issued for the project. Mr. Horning explained that although he had initially requested that only the fencing shown in the Master Plan be required to be constructed, the applicant would agree to comply with the recommended condition, except for the specification to include masonry material. He asked that decorative elements only be required on the frontages along Rosewood Street and Lakeview Boulevard. No one requested the hearing be held open to receive additional written evidence or testimony. Staff advised that the applicants' requested changes to the staff recommended conditions were acceptable with the following exceptions: They noted the applicants had requested that Condition B(1)(b) be modified to allow the applicants to use an alternative pathway surfacing material to asphalt. They advised that an asphalt pathway would be easier to maintain than a "soft path" and would provide a smooth and easily accessible surface that would connect with the existing sidewalk. They suggested that the applicants be required to install a temporary gravel pathway of 5 or 6 feet width (whatever amount of right of way was available) along the north side of Rosewood, and sign a nonremonstrance agreement for future street improvements. They explained that they had recommended a prohibition against fencing the open space tract in the applicants project so it would not be separated from the open space tract in the adjacent Lindsay Court development. Mr. Pishvaie advised that recommended Condition D(3), which protected trees outside of the building footprints, basically restated current Code requirements, and the Code would be enforced with or without this condition. He explained that the Code required that any trees that could be impacted in a Major or Minor Development were to be identified and notice was required. He pointed out the staff had identified 121 trees that could potentially be impacted, even though it was likely they would not all be removed. Mr. Cushing observed the applicants had identified 30 trees that were to be removed from within the area of infrastructure. He noted that if the Commission only approved removal of those trees, homebuilders would have to apply for a tree -cutting permit for each individual lot when they applied for building permits. The Commissioners and staff acknowledged that there were certain lots within the project that could take more trees. Mr. Cushing suggested a condition that provided that mitigation trees for lots that could not accommodate more trees were to be planted on certain specified lots that needed more trees. Ms. Binkley suggested a requirement that each lot in the project was to have at least five trees (to be selected from the City's acceptable tree listing), which would result in a minimum of 70 trees on the lots. Mr. Cushing invited the Mr. Horning to comment on possible changes to the conditions of approval that the Commissioners had discussed. Mr. Horning asked for clarification regarding the suggested condition for a non -remonstrance agreement. Mr. Cushing explained that if the Commission imposed the condition as suggested by Mr. Horning to only require a gravel path on the north side of Rosewood Street that condition would also require the applicants to sign a non -remonstrance agreement for a future sidewalk improvement there. Mr. Horning indicated the applicants could agree to such a condition. Mr. Horning indicated the applicants could also agree to a condition requiring five trees per lot, even though he was disappointed that the conditions would City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 9 Minutes of September 5, 2001 not provide more incentives to protect the significant trees. He confirmed for Ms. Binkley that street trees to be planted along the street were in the number shown on Exhibit E-4 and the applicant would agree to select them from the City's tree listing. Mr. Pishvaie corrected the staff report to show an additional recommended Condition A(14) to require the applicant to sign a nonremonstrance agreement on Lakeview Boulevard (to repeat the language of the bulleted item at top of page 13 of the staff report). The applicants' representative waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Chair Cushing closed the hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberations Ms. Binkley opined the fencing along Lakeview Boulevard should be a friendly and open "good neighbor" style fence and should not be a solid fence. She noted that if the fence was within 10 feet of the street it was limited to four feet tall, but if it was set back 10 feet or greater, it could be taller. Ms. Ostly opined the fence design should be sufficient to contain a dog. Several Commissioners indicated they believed that the small size of the lots would prevent the fence from being set back as far as 10 feet. Ms. Binkley calculated that the 30 trees to be removed from the common area and 70 trees to be required on the lots totaled 149 trees. Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 01-0012, subject to the conditions recommended by the staff, modified as follows: Condition A(1)(c )(iii): Accept the applicants proposed change to this condition. Condition A(8): Accept the applicants proposed change to this condition. • Condition B(1)(b): There was to be no change to the staff recommended condition for an asphalt pathway. • Condition B(1)(d) was to be modified to require that there be at least 5 trees on each lot in the development; to require mitigation of the 30 trees to be removed for infrastructure; and to specify that fencing shall not be installed where the site's open space adjoins neighboring open space. • Condition B(1)(j): Accept the applicants proposed change to allow a temporary gravel pathway on Rosewood Street. • Add Condition A(14) to require that the applicants sign a non -remonstrance agreement for street improvements along Lakeview Boulevard. • Delete Condition D(3). • Condition D(6): Accept the applicants proposed change to allow the use of alternative fencing materials to masonry and to specify that wood or other decorative materials was to be used on the street frontages. This Condition was City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 9 Minutes of September 5, 2001 also to specify that the fence along Lakeview Boulevard was to be limited to 4 feet high. Mr. Miller seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Ms. Ostly, Mr. Miller, Mr. Powers and Mr. Tierney voting yes. Commissioner Morales was not present. There were no votes against. Chair Cushing announced the final vote on the Findings, Conclusions and Order would be held on September 17, 2001. VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS Three -lot partition on Country Club Road Staff confirmed for the Commissioners that they were to review the number of trees that had actually been cut on a property along Country Club Road where a Tree -Cutting Permit and Building Permit had been issued. They reported that the house footprint there had not been expanded. They related the owner was considering a future additional flag lot partition. They observed a tree -cutting notice had been posted on the adjacent property. Block 136 Lighting Fixtures The Commissioners and staff observed that the brass lighting fixtures at the Block 136 development had an unattractive finish. Upcoming Agenda Items Staff pointed out that the Commission would conduct a work session on September 19, 2001; they were to review proposals for two subdivisions on Carman Drive and near Knaus Road at future hearings; and the Edwards application was scheduled to be heard on October 1, 2001. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Cushing adjourned the meeting at 9:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader Senior Secretary L:\pc\minutes\09-05-0 Ldoc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 9 Minutes of September 5, 2001