Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2003-11-17 (03) City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes November 17, 2003   CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of November 17, 2003 to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 “A” Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. ROLL CALL Commissioners present included Chair Tierney, Vice Chair Sheila Ostly, Nan Binkley*, Julie Morales, Krytsyna Stadnik and Gary Fagelman*. Commissioner Andrew Hill was excused. Staff present included Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner; Debra Andreades, Associate Planner; David Powell, City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Ostly moved to approve the Minutes of September 29, 2003. Ms. Stadnik seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Ostly, Morales, Stadnik and Fagelman and Chair Tierney voting yes. There were no votes against. Ms. Binkley and Mr. Hill were not present. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 03-0052, a request by Joseph and Roxanne Stapleton Ms. Morales moved to approve LU 03-0052-1517, Findings, Conclusions and Order. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Ostly, Morales and Stadnik voting yes. Ms. Binkley and Mr. Hill were not present. Chair Tierney and Mr. Fagelman abstained from the vote. There were no votes against. LU 03-0036, a request by Centerpointe Shops, LLC. Mr. Pishvaie recommended that the DRC re-open the deliberations phase of the hearing to consider all of the requests in the application. He recalled the Commissioners had decided against allowing modification of the ODPS, but they had not addressed design review or the variance and tree removal requests. Ms. Morales moved to re-open deliberations for LU 03-0036 on December 1, 2003. Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Ostly, Morales, Stadnik and Fagelman voting yes. There were no votes against. Chair Tierney and Mr. Fagelman abstained from the vote. Ms. Binkley and Mr. Hill were not present. PUBLIC HEARING LU 03-0015, a request by Ethel Schaubel for the public hearing to be re-opened for a project that was tentatively approved at a public hearing on September 15, 2003. The applicant had originally requested approval of a 9-lot detached single-family residential planned development. The Development Review Commission approved the project, but reduced the development density from nine to eight lots. The applicant has requested the hearing be re-opened in order to submit additional information in support of the original 9-lot density. The property is located at Bryant Road, Tax Lots 700, 800, 900 of Tax Map 21E 17CD. The staff coordinator is 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. None of the commissioners present declared a conflict of interest. No one present challenged any commissioner’s right to hear the application. Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated September 5, 2003; and Staff Memorandum dated November 7, 2003). She recalled the Commission had previously approved the project with a total of eight lots with 15-foot setbacks on both sides after the applicant had proposed a 9-lot subdivision with a 5-foot setback on one side. She related that the applicant wanted the Commission to hear a proposal for nine lots that would comply with the 15-foot side yard setback requirement. She noted the applicant had submitted a new plan that relocated the swale to in front of two of the lots. She recalled that although the Commission had previously tentatively approved the request for a reduction in the 25-foot required front yard setback, the applicant was now proposing a 25-foot front setback for Lots 8 and 9 (that were behind the water quality swale) and a 20-foot front yard setback for the remaining lots. She reported the new plan met the open space requirement. She said staff had recommended that the swale not be designated as a tract (Tract A), but as an easement, because if it were in its own tract, the lots behind it would be pushed further back into the conservation easement in order to confirm with the front yard setback. She advised that the conservation easement area was 975 sq. ft. short of meeting the Hillside Protection Standard. She reported that the applicant had submitted Exhibit E12 just prior to the hearing and staff had not yet had an opportunity to review it. She pointed out a staff-recommended condition to address the deficit in the conservation easement. Applicant Kirsten Van Loo, CES/NW, 15573 SW Bangy Road, #300, Lake Oswego, 97035, and Bob Spiker, Brandywine Homes, Inc., 20 Morningview Circle, Lake Oswego, 97035, presented Exhibit E12 that included a revised site plan. Mr. Spiker stated that his firm would not sell any vacant lots and would build and market the houses. He recalled the Commissioners had been concerned about what the houses would look like. He pointed to a drawing showing houses from the street perspective. He pointed out the locations of the shared driveways and a “transitional area” created between the rear of the houses and two sets of 4-foot high retaining walls. He explained the walls were to be 20 to 24 feet from the buildings and the retaining wall line defined the conservation easement area. He said this plan would achieve the additional 975 sq. ft. of protected area that staff had requested. He said the walls addressed neighbors’ concern that the development would weaken the hillside. He said that the applicant’s soils engineer had found there would be no disturbance to the hillside or soil within an average distance of 40 feet. He presented a conceptual floor plan showing a side-loaded garage and a bonus room above the garage. He explained that the house plan would vary from lot to lot and provide variety along the street. The Commissioners observed that the bonus room plan would make the house three stories tall at the street elevation. Ms. Van Loo pointed to a drawing that that showed the potential building area on each lot with a 20- to 25-foot front yard setback, 15-foot side yard setbacks, and a 15-foot applicant-imposed rear yard setback from the edge of the conservation easement. She explained that the voluntary setback, plus the required rear yard setback could be as wide as 65 feet. She pointed out the location of the drainage swale and clarified it was to be in an easement over two lots, rather than a tract. She then discussed the constraints presented by the existing public utility easements that crossed the site to serve an adjacent subdivision. She pointed to a drawing that showed every existing tree over five inches diameter. She noted that portions of the site had few or no trees because trees had been removed many years ago to accommodate public utilities. She asked the Commission to approve removal and mitigation of trees for the entire project according to the applicant’s Tree Mitigation and Enhancement Planting Plan instead of requiring a Type II Tree Removal Permit process on each individual lot. She recalled staff had specifically requested the mitigation plan. She pointed out the Plan proposed to remove approximately 97 trees, replace them with 112 trees, and add 116 shrubs. She clarified that the applicant did not plan to plant trees in the area of the public utility easements. She pointed out that since Lots 1 through 5 had very few trees and Lots 6 through 9 were more heavily treed, to mitigate on each individual lot would create an unbalanced result over the entire project. She explained the applicant had addressed the deficit of 975 square feet protection of steeper slopes by widening the protected area in some places to add 1,000 square feet of land to the open space, which enlarged it to .63 acre in size. She explained the open space area was 28% of the site and more than met the 20% requirement. She explained that in return for the larger open space area, the applicant was requesting a front yard reduction of five feet on seven of the nine lots. When the Commissioners asked what the time interval would be between tree removal and replanting, she explained that the amount of time between removal and replanting of trees would depend on the weather, and she suggested a condition that mitigation was to be either installed or bonded before the plat was recorded. Ms. Stadnik asked how the site was to be drained. Carl Jensen, CES, 15573 SW Bangy Road, #300, Lake Oswego, 97035, confirmed that the applicant still planned to use planter boxes to handle drainage. Staff observed that the applicant had not substantially changed the storm drainage plan. Mr. Jensen explained how the applicant would control erosion by using a silt fence, protecting catch basins, installing a filter insert in each basin, and minimizing disturbance of the natural vegetation on the hillside. He advised that after cuts were made for the houses the area should be quickly backfilled to minimize sloughing off of the hillside. Chair Tierney directed staff to place copies of Exhibit E12 on the meeting table for anyone who desired to examine it. Ms. Andreades cautioned the Commission against allowing all the trees to be removed at one time and before it was known how development would take place on the site. She explained that the new plan in Exhibit E12 for two retaining walls could narrow the conservation easement slightly and require removal of more trees on Lots 7 through 9. She recommended that the retaining walls be mitigated because the increased separation between houses would make the walls more visible from the street. She said staff could support the plan for a 9-lot subdivision with 15-foot side yard setbacks, but they needed additional time to examine other changes in the new revised plan. Mr. Pishvaie observed that Exhibit E12 showed retaining walls that might require larger cuts and removal of more than 97 trees. He advised that a change in the number of trees to be removed would require another public notice. He explained staff needed more time to compare older (Exhibit E11) and newer (Exhibit E12) site plans. He advised that there were setback and aesthetic issues related to walls that should be examined by staff. He advised that the required setback for walls higher than four feet was 15 feet. He explained that staff could not recommend approval of the application until they had enough information to show the proposal met the standards. He noted that the first site plan in Exhibit E4 showed one wall; that the next site plan in Exhibit E11 showed no walls; and that the newest site plan in Exhibit E12 showed two walls. Ms. Van Loo explained that the applicant’s request to remove 97 trees had never changed and all of the documents the applicant had submitted showed at least one retaining wall that would allow them to build a house 70 to 80 feet into the hillside. She acknowledged that it might have been a mistake for the applicant to present additional conceptual material in Exhibit E12. She explained they had presented that information to address Commissioners’ concern that there would be enough light entering the buildings. She stressed the purpose of the hearing was not to approve a specific building footprint, and that it was clear the applicant would have to grade the site and take out all of the trees in the building area. She anticipated that a lot-by-lot tree removal permitting process would not result in an appropriate distribution of trees on the site. She questioned why staff had asked for a mitigation plan to be submitted with the application. Mr. Pishvaie recalled that the Commission had addressed the tree distribution problem in other applications with a condition that each lot was to have some trees and those lots that did not have any trees on them would be enhanced by mitigation trees. After Chair Tierney asked Ms. Van Loo what the applicant would like the Commission to consider at the hearing, she withdrew Exhibit E12 and asked the Commission to review the remaining exhibits and then approve the project. She held that the applicant had submitted all of the other drawings in a timely fashion and had addressed every issue; she stressed that the application clearly related the impacts to the site and requested approval to remove 97 trees. She anticipated the builder would decide whether or not retaining walls were appropriate at a later stage of development. The Commissioners then asked for more specific details regarding height, drainage and mitigation of the retaining walls. Ms. Morales observed details in the older drawings that were different from those on the newer drawings. Mr. Jensen referred to the revised grading plan as “Exhibit 2 of 5.” He said it showed the buildings, the walls, described heights and identified which trees were to be removed. Chair Tierney observed that the Commissioners did not have that exhibit. He asked Mr. Jensen to describe the retaining wall. Mr. Jensen described the route and the height of the wall at different locations. It ranged from two feet to four feet high over the course before it eventually met ground. He clarified that the wall did not cross two of the lots. He explained that the wall would feature a footing drain to catch water and direct it down to the public system. Proponents None. Opponents Katherine B Irving, 3600 Piper Ct., Lake Oswego, 97034, observed that although the notice of the hearing listed only the issue of the change to the side yard setbacks, the plan now showed retaining walls and the conservation easement had been modified from a 40-foot wide protected strip along the rear of the site to an area that varied between 30 and 50 feet. She worried that the site would be “clear-cut” and also about the impact of the retaining walls. She said the large trees on the hillside should be protected and she noted those trees were similar to other large trees found in the neighborhood. She calculated that the Hillside Protection Area should be 28,662 sq. ft., (or 35% of the 20% to 50% category slope area) if the developed portion of that slope could not exceed 65%. She calculated that the conservation easement (at a uniform 40-foot depth) was 26,194 sq. ft. in area. She held the swale at the bottom of the slope should not be counted as part of the steep slope protection area and the protected area should be larger to meet the Hillside Protection Standard. She explained that she resided at the top of the slope and wanted to ensure the stability of the slope. Staff clarified for the Commissioners that no tree cutting was allowed in the conservation easement and Chair Tierney clarified for Ms. Irving that trees might be planted in the conservation easement to mitigate the 97 trees proposed to be removed from other parts of the site. Staff confirmed that the Slope Analysis Map in Exhibit E6 showed the portion of the conservation easement that was in the 20% - 50% slope category and that the Hillside Protection Standard limited the impact to that category of slope to 65% and protected 35% of it. They recommended that the Commission impose a condition of approval that nothing in that protected area could be disturbed by retaining walls or other improvements. They noted that although the area of the water quality swale had been included in their calculation of the protected area, the status of the swale had subsequently been changed from a tract to an easement. They differentiated between the matter of addressing the Hillside Protection Standard that regulated the amount of disturbance on steep land and the matter of the appropriate amount of open space. Mr. Pishvaie explained that because the applicant had withdrawn Exhibit E12 the amount of open space (.60 acre) had not changed between the original site plan and the site plan in Exhibit E11. He observed that 35% of the protected slope could be fully protected by a conservation easement on the east side of the site and that would leave a developable area for buildings and the swale elsewhere on the site. Ms. Morales commented that even though Exhibit E12 had been withdrawn, the applicant should clarify whether they currently proposed one wall or more than one wall. Staff then entered another exhibit into the record as Exhibit E12. They explained that exhibit had been submitted with the application but erroneously omitted from the staff report. They pointed out that the retaining wall was identified in a pink color in this exhibit. Richard H. Irving, 3600 Piper Ct., Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that he concurred with previous testimony against the proposal. He held that the proposal did not clearly show where trees were to be removed and that the notice of the hearing had been deficient. Neither for nor against John Atonis, 7 1/2 Hillshire Drive, Lake Oswego, 97034, said the plan for retaining walls and removal of trees did not provide sufficient details to determine how they would impact the slope. He asked how the walls would be drained. He opined that the proposal did not promote quality of life in Lake Oswego. Sue Sheldahl, 18707 Bryant Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, who resided across the street from site, said she was concerned about additional traffic and whether the local water table would be impacted by additional impermeable surfaces over the site. She reported that she had already experienced problems created by water runoff draining from Westridge Road and she was also challenged in exiting her driveway by impeded site distance due to power poles that had been relocated to accommodate a new bike path. She concluded there were too many houses proposed on the site. John Furtig, 18701 Bryant Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated he resided across the street from the site. He asked if any traffic controls or crosswalks were planned. He asked if area homes with septic systems would be required to connect to City sanitary sewer. Chair Tierney pointed out that the original staff report contained a traffic study and sidewalk plan and it was available to the public at a side table. Staff advised that the applicant was required to extend the sanitary sewer line to the site. They acknowledged that extension might provide an opportunity for other property owners to connect to it. They explained that the City and County required homes that were within 300 feet of City sewer facilities to connect to the City line if their septic system failed. They encouraged Mr. Furtig to discuss the matter with the City Engineering Department. Rebuttal Ms. Van Loo emphasized that the applicant had submitted full sets of drawings in the package they resubmitted in October, and that those materials addressed all of the concerns voiced at the hearing. She recalled that the applicant had based their revised plan for open space on staff recommendations. She pointed out on the exhibits that the applicant had addressed a potential deficiency in the amount of 20% - 50% slope protection by increasing the total square footage of the open space (formerly .60 acres) by 1,000 square feet. She explained they had accomplished that increase by reducing the width of the open space at the north end of the site and widening it at the south end. She emphasized that the open space was protected from any tree removal, grading or digging. She stated the applicant would gladly agreed to widen the protected area by one or two feet and she calculated that each additional foot of width would add another 800 square feet to the protected area. She reminded the Commissioners that the applicant had voluntarily prescribed an additional 15-foot setback at the edge of the building area and they could reduce that to a 12-foot setback in order to add more area to the open space. She stressed that even though there was no Resource Protection Overlay on the site to give special protection to the trees the conservation easement area would not be disturbed. She pointed out the applicant was not planning to clear-cut the site; they had never modified their original request to remove 97 trees; and they proposed to mitigate with 112 trees and 116 shrubs that would be planted uniformly across the 56 acres of open space according to a native vegetation replacement plan. She indicated her frustration that after the applicant had modified a site plan that originally featured a large open space in order to address the Commissioners’ concern that the houses were too narrow and side setbacks were too small to be compatible with the neighborhood, the residents’ felt that the widened houses were too big and the larger footprints required removal of too many trees. She held the applicant had addressed all applicable criteria and standards. During questioning by the Commissioners she clarified that the applicant was currently proposing a plan that featured a larger open space area and addressed the deficiency of protected area previously identified by the staff. She clarified that the .60-acre open space shown in Exhibit E11 had subsequently been increased to .6372 acre. Chair Tierney recalled testimony indicating that neighbors were concerned about the stability of the hillside and the impact of water runoff. Mr. Jensen explained that runoff would drain downslope and be collected in an existing system in the street that could adequately handle a 50-year storm. He recalled that the applicant had suggested three different methods of detention and water quality treatment to the staff and currently proposed the (swale) method that had been favored by staff. He questioned staff calculation that showed the protected area was deficient by 975 sq. ft. He said the plan left the eastern portion of the site untouched in native vegetation and his calculations showed the actual percentage of grading disturbance of the 20% to 50% slope category area was 51%. He explained staff calculation did not give the applicant credit for 14% of the site that was to be left undisturbed. No one requested that the record be held open for submission of additional written testimony or evidence. The applicant waived their right to request additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Chair Tierney closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberations Mr. Fagelman held that it was better to examine tree removal and mitigation on a lot-by-lot basis rather than to allow removal of all of the trees on the site at one time. Ms. Ostly and Ms. Morales observed that it might take a number of years for every lot to be developed, but if building permits were sought for many lots at the same time, tree removal and mitigation could be addressed for all of those lots at the same time. Staff confirmed that the City typically agreed to allow tree mitigation for heavily treed lots on other lots in a project that might need more trees. They recommended that the findings or conditions of approval reflect that approach. The Commissioners generally agreed that the applicant had resolved the issues of lot size and side yard setbacks. Ms. Morales, however, commented she would have preferred to see more detailed information showing house designs and the relationship of the building footprint and the slope. Mr. Fagelman recalled that had been the reason the applicant had presented the (now withdrawn) exhibit first designated as “Exhibit 12” and Ms. Ostly recalled that exhibit had presented information than the Commission could not use to make their decision. The Commissioners then questioned whether one or many retaining walls were being proposed. Ms. Morales observed that current Exhibit E12 showed one wall. She suggested a condition of approval that if the construction plans showed more than one wall that would be considered a modification of approval to be reviewed by the Commission. Staff advised that there were general setback requirements that applied to retaining walls and that a wall under four feet high was to be set back three feet from each lot or property line, unless the PD was approved with zero setbacks for the wall. They observed that the applicant’s plan showed one continuous wall that would be visible between the houses from the perspective of the roadway. They suggested the Commission consider imposing a condition to visually break up the wall. Ms. Ostly and Chair Tierney observed the low wall could be buffered by vegetation. Chair Tierney observed the slope would be better protected if the protection area were increased by the area of the swale, plus the 975-square-foot deficiency (after calculating the protected area as a straight 35% of the steeper slope category). He recalled the applicant had testified they could agree to that and that there were a number of ways of accomplishing that. He suggested the Commission allow the staff to determine how to best accomplish that configuration. Mr. Fagelman moved to approve LU 03-0015, subject to the conditions recommended by staff and additional conditions to increase the protected slope area and to allow a single continuous wall as long as it was less than four feet high. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and discussion followed. Chair Tierney invited the applicant to comment on the additional conditions. Mr. Jensen reported the applicant would agree to the new conditions. Then he reported that the applicant was not certain whether they were required to meander the sidewalk along Bryant Road. The Commissioners referred the applicant to the other conditions of approval in the staff report. Ms. Morales explained that she would support the application only because it barely met the criteria to be considered by the Commission, but she believed the applicant proposed too much development on the site. The motion passed with Commissioners Ostly, Morales, Fagelman and Chair Tierney voting yes. Commissioner Stadnik voted against. Commissioners Binkley and Hill were not present. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would take place on December 1, 2003. He then announced a break in the proceedings and then reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m. ============================================================== *Ms. Binkley joined the meeting. LU 03-0044, a request by Welkin Engineering for approval of the following: A two-parcel minor partition of a 1.51-acre site, with access from Egan Way. Parcel 1 will be approximately 21,142 square feet and Parcel 2 will be approximately 44,218 square feet. Approval to remove approximately 63 trees to accommodate development. The site is located at Egan Way, Tax Lot 100 of Tax Map 21E 04CC. The staff coordinator is Debra Andreades, Associate Planner. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedures 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. None of the commissioners present reported a conflict of interest. No one at the hearing challenged any commissioner’s right to hear the application. Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated November 7, 2003). She explained staff had approved the partition request and given partial approval of the Type II Tree Removal request, (for construction of necessary utilities), but denied the request to allow removal of trees for house placement. She explained the denial had been based on the applicant’s failure to comply with applicable criteria that required them to show that removal would not have a significant negative impact on existing windbreaks and would not have a significant negative impact on character, aesthetics or property values in the neighborhood. She pointed out on the site plan that the existing house was on Parcel 1 and a house was proposed on the proposed Parcel 2. She noted the plan identified trees to be removed to accommodate the new house. She presented an aerial view of the site that also outlined the approximate footprint of the new house. She reported that staff had found that removal of so much tree canopy on the western portion of the site would reduce the wind buffer for the remaining trees and increase the risk of blow down, and it would negatively impact the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood. She advised that although the Code allowed an exception if reasonable alternatives for the house location that would save trees had been considered, the criterion had not been met because the applicant had submitted no alternative plans. She reported staff recommendation to approve the minor partition into two parcels, to grant a Type II Tree Removal Permit for 12 trees in order to construct utilities, and to deny a tree removal permit to remove trees for placement of the house. During questioning by the Commissioners, Ms. Andreades clarified that the City owned the two small triangular-shaped lots that bordered two sides of the corner of the site that touched Wembley Place, but that land was not part of a public right-of-way and access to the site from Wembley Place was not possible. She clarified that at a future time after the partition was approved if a builder applied for a permit to remove trees he would be required to show alternative footprints that could save more trees. She confirmed that the minimum lots size in the zone was 10,000 square feet. Applicant Ed Christensen, President, Welkin Engineering, 293 SW Cervantes, Lake Oswego, 97035, represented the applicant, Greg Hogensen. He related his goal was to build a house in an area where his daughters could attend Lake Oswego High School. He related that Mr. Hogensen had agreed to sell him part of his property as long as the Christensen’s accessed their home from Wembley Place. However, after neighbors indicated they would not support a driveway there, Mr. Hogensen had agreed to driveway access from Egan Way. Mr. Christensen said the only remaining issue to be resolved was tree removal. He pointed out areas where the tree grove was sparse. He explained that his agreement with Mr. Hogensen would not allow him to preserve trees by moving the house forward on the parcel. He explained that Tract A was a legal right-of-way that would accommodate the driveway. He related that he had followed staff’s suggestion to move the proposed house 25 feet further back in order to provide a 30-foot rear buffer for the adjacent house below, but that relocation meant that trees had to be removed. He described the proposed drainage system and explained it would also benefit the neighbors on Wembley Place by addressing water runoff. He explained that he and Mr. Hogensen had agreed to preserve an area between their houses that could become a future third lot. He presented slides (Exhibit E13) and pointed out 12 trees that he said were either dead or hazardous and others that were less than 10-inches in diameter. He explained that trees would be removed both for grading and to create a fire safety zone around the house. He explained that he planned to achieve the same percentage of open space (20%) that a developer would be required to provide, and he would plant trees and enhance the existing buffer around the perimeter of the site. He anticipated that his house plan would not offer many views of the neighboring house downhill towards the north. He pointed out where the driveway would come from Egan Way and where a hammerhead would be constructed. He anticipated that the property would be re-partitioned in the future to create a building lot for a third house. He contrasted what would happen to the tree grove on the site if it were developed for five lots with the current plan for three lots (Exhibit E14). During questioning by the Commissioners, Mr. Christensen confirmed that he could not move the new house away from the trees because he had agreed to preserve an area for a potential third lot. He also clarified that although the National Forestry Association recommended at least a 30-foot-wide firebreak, he planned to save two trees that were within that area. He explained the applicant was not currently asking for a three-lot partition because that could mean that the Christensens would not be able to choose their own method of preserving open space. He submitted a letter from an arborist (Exhibit F8) that advised the trees on the site were not subject to wind blow. When asked what would prevent an eventual five-lot development, he explained that the setbacks for his house were too small to allow that. He said the applicant would agree to a condition of approval that the site could not be divided into more than three lots. He described the route and grade of the future driveway across Tract A and acknowledged that it could also serve as access for neighbors to the south even though there was currently no such agreement with the neighbors. He clarified that the existing house and the new house would be at about the same elevation. He pointed out where the driveway grade dropped 10% and where there would be a retaining wall. He explained that he had chosen this site for a home because it was one of only a few building sites that were located where his daughters would be able to attend Lake Oswego High School. Proponents Greg Hogensen submitted a packet containing sixteen letters from local residents (Exhibit F9). Opponents Bernadette Foster, 1998 Wembley Place, Lake Oswego, 97034, said she resided on a very steep slope north of the site and she was concerned about increased water runoff due to soil disturbance from development. She advocated saving more mature trees because they absorbed more water than young trees. She acknowledged that she had not previously been aware that the applicant could develop the site into five lots. Charles Roland, 2032 Wembley Place, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated he agreed with staff’s position that the dwelling should be located further up the hill towards the east to protect the trees and the hillside. He said he hoped the Christensens would continue to plan to go beyond what was legally required and install drainage facilities and replant trees. He indicated that he did not look forward to having large homes on the site that would loom over the smaller homes below. Barry Cadish, 2064 Wembley Place, Lake Oswego, 97034, stressed that trees contributed to the character of the neighborhood. He indicated that he felt that Welkin Engineering had asked for exceptions to the flag lot requirements (in a previous request) and tree removal requirements in order to be able to construct a very large house that would not be compatible with existing homes in the neighborhood. He calculated that if the arborist had concluded that 40% of the trees selected for removal were rated fair or less, then that meant that 60% of removed trees were rated good, or better. He suggested that the Christensens compromise with the neighbors and save 63 trees by locating their house further east. Neither for nor against Paul Lyons, 2250 SW Wembley Park Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, reported that he had recently been elected Vice Chair of the Springbrook Park Neighborhood Association and a new Association board had been formed on October 28, 2003. He advised that none of the current board members had received notice of the application. He conveyed the Association’s request to hold the record open to allow them time to discuss and forward their formal comment on the application. Staff advised that the City sent notices only to association chairpersons and the neighborhood meeting notice was to be mailed by the applicant to both the association chair and all of the directors. Mr. Lyons explained that there had recently been a complete change in the makeup of the Association’s executive committee. Tom O’Conner, 1960 Egan Way, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated his property was adjacent to Tract A and he also represented his mother, Marion O’Conner, 1954 Egan Way. He recalled that Tract A had been created and dedicated as a right-of-way at the time land was partitioned to create his lot in order to ensure that there would be access to the back of his parents’ property for future development. He said his family had no current plans to develop that property; however, they supported staff recommendation for utility placement that would allow their development to tie into utilities in the future. He said they assumed that “utilities” included telecommunications and electric facilities. He said it was important to his family that the street access in Tract A be graded so that it would be compatible with a future extension to serve his family’s development. He indicated he felt staff had adequately addressed the applicant’s plan for a retaining wall. Rebuttal Mr. Hogensen stated he was the current owner of the site. He observed that large new homes were being constructed in front of his home and nearby. He explained that he had previously decided against a four-lot development proposal for the site, but he had agreed to allow Mr. Christensen to place a home in the back half of the property and to re-partition for a third lot because that plan left more space for Mr. Hogensen’s home. He explained that if the Christensen house were relocated, it would be a challenge to make room for the third lot in between and still provide adequate space for Mr. Hogensen’s residence. He said he was aware that he could repartition the site over time to eventually create four more lots, but he would prefer not to do that, even though it would be more profitable. He opined that there would still be enough trees and canopy to provide privacy if his request for tree removal was granted. He said most of the trees selected for removal should be removed for health reasons anyway. Mr. Christensen calculated that in the five-lot development scenario the Code would allow a total of 23,375 sq. ft. of new and existing housing on the site; in the four-lot scenario there could be a total of 18, 553 sq. ft of housing on the site; and in the three-lot scenario, there could be a total of 14,688 sq. ft. of housing on the site. He perceived the three-lot scenario as the least intrusive to neighbors and trees. He stressed that he planned to address drainage issues that he was not required to address. He assured the neighbors that a geological analysis had found that the soil was stable. He said to move the house as Mr. Roland had suggested would break his agreement with Mr. Hogensen. He noted that the arborist report had concluded the tree stand was stable and would not pose a blow down hazard. He stated the applicant had sent a notice to the neighborhood association. Chair Tierney recalled a request to hold the record open for submission of additional testimony and evidence. He announced that LU 03-0044 was to be continued to December 1, 2003, 6:30 p.m. * Mr. Fagelman left the meeting at 10:20 p.m. LU 03-0045, a request by John Pinson for approval of the following: A minor partition of Tax Lot 100 into two 5,000 square foot parcels. A Development Review Permit for four single-family dwellings in the DD Zone. Three Class 2 Variances: A 2.2 percent variance for both Parcels A and B to increase the maximum 35% lot coverage required by LOC 50.09.035(1) to 37.2 percent. A 4.8 percent variance to increase the maximum 35% lot coverage required by LOC 50.09.035(1) to 39.8 percent for Tax Lot 200. The removal of twelve trees in order to construct the four dwellings and driveways. The site is located at 144 Leonard St., 140 & 190 Furnace St., Tax Lots 100, 200, 800 of Tax Map 21E 10AC. The staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedures 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. None of the commissioners present reported a conflict of interest. No one at the hearing challenged any commissioner’s right to hear the application. Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated November 7, 2003). She advised that the development was in the Old Town Design District, which required buildings to be designed in the Old Town Style, to minimize garages from the street and to provide access from the alley wherever feasible. She explained the property consisted of three lots and the applicant was proposing to divide the 10,000 sq. ft. corner lot into two lots, to achieve three 5,000 sq. ft. lots and a 7,500 sq. ft. lot. She said the site would be accessed from Leonard Street. She explained that a variance for lot coverage was necessary because of the reduced size of lot area after the area of the access easement had been deducted from the gross lot size. When she discussed the Building Design Standard she noted the proposed buildings showed characteristics of the Old Town Style in their steeply pitched roofs, windows and other details. She explained that staff had originally recommended a condition for a sidewalk on Furnace Street, but subsequently revised that recommendation because the neighborhood association did not favor sidewalks and this improvement could be deferred to a later date as planned for the entire length of Furnace street when developed.. She noted that 12 removed trees were to be mitigated by 12 new trees. During questioning by the Commissioners, Ms. Jacob advised that the proposed houses did not have to meet the new infill height standard of 35 feet to the roof peak because the application had been submitted before the new standards were adopted. The houses were to be limited by the previous standard of 35 feet as measured to the midpoint of the roofline. She confirmed that the Old Town Design District did not require porches. Applicant John Pinson, 144 Leonard Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, indicated he agreed with the staff recommendations. He explained that he proposed larger houses that would attract more families with kids to the Old Town Neighborhood. He asked for flexibility in trim colors in order to make the development more distinctive. Curtis Olson, Olson Group Architects, 17150 SW Upper Bones Ferry Road, Durham, Oregon, 97224, described the window details for the commissioners as vinyl framed windows with fixed mutton bars between the glass panes. When Ms. Binkley asked if the siding would vary between houses, he anticipated the siding would be shiplap or beveled style. He recalled entire blocks of attractive houses in the metropolitan area that featured the same style siding. He confirmed it would be cedar siding. Proponents Larry Gustafson, 235 Furnace Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated he resided across the street from project. He said he generally favored the proposal, but he would have preferred to see slightly lower buildings. He confirmed that the Old town Neighborhood Association did not want to see sidewalks along Furnace Street. Chair Tierney noted staff had revised their recommended conditions to require sidewalks to be installed at some future date, but not immediately. Opponents None. Neither for nor against None. No one requested that the record be held open to receive additional written testimony or evidence. Chair Tierney closed the public hearing. The applicant waived his right to request additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Deliberations Ms. Binkley suggested the Commission grant the variances in exchange for a reduction in height (to the current standard). She acknowledged that could reduce the roof pitch and reduce the overall height by a couple of feet. She also suggested that the middle building might look better to the neighbors if it featured a porch. She noted the proposed buildings were considerably larger than the buildings across the street. Ms. Morales observed that most of the houses in the neighborhood were 1.5- to 2-stories high. Staff suggested that the new condition could require the height to be limited to 35 feet, as measured to the ridgeline. Chair Tierney then invited the applicant to comment on the new conditions of approval being considered by the Commissioners. Mr. Olson advised the new height limit would significantly reduce the roof pitch and impact the charming look of the houses. However, Ms. Binkley advised that reducing the distance between floors could reduce the building’s height. Mr. Olson explained that the variance was necessary to allow the applicant to implement a plan for access that benefited the neighborhood because it reduced traffic on Furnace Street. He said the third floors were already more segmented than those of comparable homes in First Addition that featured a giant third floor bonus room. He asked to be allowed to maintain a first floor height of 10 feet. Ms. Binkley recalled the new height standard had been adopted to prevent new houses from seeming to loom over smaller existing houses. She confirmed for staff that she believed the new condition should apply to all four houses although it would mostly impact one of them. The applicant observed there was a four-story apartment building behind the site and the site served as a transition area between the apartment building and Furnace Street. He recalled the two houses that had been approved but not yet constructed were 35 feet high. He said the steep roof pitch contributed to the charm and character of the houses. He clarified for the Commissioners that the house design that would be most impacted by the change in height limit was on Tax Lot 800 and it would have to be lowered four feet from 39 feet, which would almost eliminate the third floor. Ms. Binkley advised him there were other ways to achieve the reduction. Mr. Pinson clarified that the other houses were 36, 37.5 and 35 feet to the ridgeline of the roof. He said the proposed project was a low impact development compared to what was allowed in the zone. He said that if the applicant had proposed a “straight-in” driveway the plan would comply with the older requirements and he would not be penalized for seeking a variance. Ms. Ostly indicated she was primarily concerned with the tallest house that would be close to a house that was half its height. Ms. Morales indicated she agreed with Ms. Binkley’s suggested new condition and that even if there was an adjacent tall apartment complex, the majority of houses in the neighborhood were of lower scale. Ms. Binkley moved to approve LU 03-0045, subject to the conditions recommended by staff as amended during deliberations. Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Ostly, Binkley, Morales, Stadnik and Chair Tierney voting yes. Commissioners Fagelman and Hill were not present. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would be held on December 1, 2003. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS New DRC member Mr. Pishvaie announced the City Council had appointed a new DRC member. ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p. m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader Senior Secretary L\drc\minutes\11-17-03.doc