Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2006-04-03 (02)  City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes April 3, 2006   CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Sheila called the Development Review Commission meeting of April 3, 2006, 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 besides Vice Chair Sheila Ostly were Commissioners Nan Binkley, Bob Needham, Krytsyna Stadnik and Halliday Meisburger. Chair Bill Tierney, was excused. Staff present included Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Debra Andreades, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Barbara Dillinger, Administrative Assistant. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 05-0065, Oswego Investors, LLC. Mr. Meisburger moved to approve LU 05-0065 Findings, Conclusions and Order. Ms. Stadnik seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Ms. Binkley abstained. LU 05-0068, LO 138, LLC. Mr. Meisburger moved to approve LU 06-0068, Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 3:0. Ms. Binkley and Ms. Stadnik abstained. PUBLIC HEARING LU 05-0080, a request by Persimmon Construction, LLC. For approval of the following: A 5-lot Planned Development (PD). A Development Review Permit to construct five townhouses. A property line adjustment between Tax Lots 8900 and 8800. A 14% exception to the lot coverage standard in order to increase it from an average of 40% to 54% (over the proposed five lots), through the Residential Infill Design Review standards. Removal of eight trees to accommodate the development. Location of property: 690 1st Street; Tax Lot 8900 and 8800 of Tax Map 21E 03DA. The staff coordinator was Debra Andreades, Associate Planner. The hearing had been continued from the March 20, 2006, DRC hearing in order to allow Commissioners Stadnik and Meisburger to review the record of the March 6, 2006 hearing and ask questions of the applicant and other interest persons who had already testified. Vice Chair Ostly opened the public hearing and Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. The Commissioners each declared their business or profession: Binkley (architect); Needham (lawyer); Ostly (real estate appraiser); Meisburger (architect); and Stadnik (civil engineer). Commissioners Stadnik and Meisburger reported they had reviewed the record of the March 6th, hearing; and Commissioner Binkley reported she had reviewed the record of the March 20, 2006, hearing. Commissioner Binkley reported she had made several site visits and Commissioner Meisburger reported that he frequently drove by the site. Questions from the Commissioners Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, recalled for the Commissioners that the arborist had testified that some of the Sequoia roots would be cut under the supervision of the arborist, and the tree was likely to survive it. Applicant Brian Lessler, Persimmon Construction, LLC., 500 SE Butler Rd., Gresham, Oregon, 97080, Walter Knapp, 7615 SW Dunsmuir, Beaverton, Oregon, 97007, and Philip Stuart, Myhre Group Architects, 105 SE Taylor, Ste. 307, Portland, Oregon, 97214, explained that the site plan had been modified in order to save the Sequoia Tree. Instead of excavating through the root zone to install a drainage pipe, the applicant proposed to direct the runoff through a bioswale. They confirmed that the overhangs and decks were important to the building design (and resembled those on existing neighborhood structures) but they took the project over the 40% limit of lot coverage. They said the footprint alone was slightly less than 40%. Mr. Meisburger agreed those components reflected neighborhood architecture and he would expect to see them. The applicant pointed out that the proposed units were typical size for townhouses in the neighborhood, and if the entire building totaled 40% lot coverage, the site’s units would be smaller than existing units. They also explained that the overhangs helped them meet the RID standard. Mr. Needham observed the Code did not exclude overhanging eaves from the lot coverage calculation. Staff confirmed for Ms. Ostly that allowable lot coverage was higher in the R-2 and R-3 zones, but R-0 had never been changed. She related that the Infill Task Force had intended that R-0 would be an even more intensive zone, but the lot coverage issue for the zone had been overlooked, so the applicant had to meet the 40% limitation. Mr. Boone cautioned the Commissioners to apply the existing Code. The Commissioners examined the Zoning Map to consider the R-0 site’s proximity to other zones. A rowhouse across the alley in the R-2 zone was allowed up to 55% lot coverage. The applicant confirmed that the project could not be three stories and stay under 28 feet high. Staff clarified that under Code transition provisions it would be possible to build the part of the project that was more than 60 feet from another zone higher than 28 feet. They said that even though there were single-family homes near the site, they were in a higher density zone than the R-7.5 zone, and that created in interesting problem of how to relate the project to the homes (that might eventually be redeveloped). They confirmed the R-0 zone was supposed to be the highest density zone, and it allowed any type of housing, but a site would still be subject to wider setbacks if it abutted less intensive use. They advised that the R-0 zoned single family home south of the site meant a 25 foot setback was to apply to the site; however, the site was being developed as a Planned Development, which had allowed the applicant to modify the setback to 22-feet. Ms. Binkley and Mr. Meisburger examined the window and door divisions and the type of doors and the applicant clarified the type of grids they were to have and said the doors would be fiberglass stained to look like wood. He agreed the bars on the patio doors could be eliminated. Mr. Needham asked staff to advise him which type of intensive development the Code called for: Ten, 800 sq. ft. units, or six 1,500 sq. ft. units? Ms. Andreades said it could be either, but whatever it was the design had to be compatible with the neighborhood. She confirmed that the zoning would allow the project to have higher density, there was no minimum lot size, and the applicant could add more units, although that might create a parking issue. Staff clarified that the RID standards defined the “surrounding area” as within a 200-foot radius of the site, and they called for notice of property owners within 100 feet of the site. Vice Chair Ostly closed the public hearing. The applicant waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. They reminded the Commissioners that they now proposed to remove only seven trees. Deliberations Mr. Needham noted the applicant had agreed to save the Red Cedar Tree, and he indicated that the favored the design, but he wondered whether the goal to establish higher density could be accomplished with smaller units. Ms. Binkley said in twenty years the project might provide more of a buffer to its southern neighbor than most of the other lots had. She said she was concerned that the cost of higher density in the neighborhood was loss of trees, and she was glad the applicant planned to save the Red Cedar Tree, which would help the project look less tall. She saw the issues as transitioning and compatibility. She said the transition should also involve trees. She noted the site was very close to the R-7.5 zone. She indicated she liked the design, but she would have preferred the project were four units, and more trees were saved. When Ms. Ostly pointed out the R-2 row houses across the alley, she explained she worried that a series of such townhouse developments would “march” through the neighborhood over time. Mr. Needham observed that the Code was encouraging higher density in the R-0 zone, whether or not they agreed with that. Mr. Meisburger agreed that higher density was what was intended in the R-0 zone. However, he questioned how the proposed project could be found to be “equal or better” than the surrounding area under the RIDesign Review process, and how 54% lot coverage could be allowed, even when the R-2 zone across the alley allowed higher lot coverage, because a large part of the neighborhood did not. He agreed it was a great design and the overhangs were important. He and Ms. Binkley agreed the laddered roof was more interesting than other architecture in the area. Staff confirmed there was no front plane standard to be met in the R-0 zone. Mr. Needham agreed it was an attractive design. He noted the site might have 12, 400 sq. ft. units of affordable housing as long as it met aesthetic standards. He noted that 14% of the lot coverage was due to roof overhangs and decks. Ms. Ostly said that to take them all off would result in an unattractive project. Ms. Binkley added that would not save any more trees. Ms. Meisburger said that would not offer the kind of building design the City wanted to see. Mr. Needham suggested simply making the proposed design 14% smaller (which he acknowledged would make the units smaller, too). Ms. Ostly recalled the minimum allowable density was five units, but neighbors had testified they thought it was too dense and should be four units to be compatible. Mr. Needham observed the Commission could not approve that density. He and Ms. Ostly acknowledged the Commission could do nothing about the zoning, even if it were not the correct zoning for the neighborhood, because the City Council had left it that way. Mr. Meisburger observed the R-0 lot coverage limit was lower than in other zones, so the applicant wanted to go over that limit. However, the standard required his project to be equal or better than what he could build that met the limit. He noted a lot of the surrounding area did not seem to have that kind of lot coverage, but the site was right on the edge of the zoning district. Ms. Ostly observed the Code said the site had to have a minimum of five units. Mr. Needham observed that the Code did not say how much square footage they should have, but the height limit capped how high the project could go. He noted the units were close to Downtown and transit service. He said to start allowing the minimum lot size and exceeding the lot coverage seemed to go against what the policy makers may have been thinking about when they established the zone. He opined that the project looked like what it was zoned for, and he liked the project, but he questioned it if was right for the location of the site. Ms. Binkley observed the project had half the FAR it could have. Mr. Meisburger estimated that the height limit meant it could not hit maximum FAR. Mr. Needham reasoned that if the Code allowed lots of units over the minimum, but limited a project to 40% lot coverage, it anticipated the units would be smaller, and there would be more open space around it to lessen the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. However, Ms. Ostly recalled from her service on the Infill Task Force that the fact that the R-0 zone still had a 40% lot coverage limit was simply because it had been overlooked. Mr. Needham observed the Commission could not correct that oversight without a Code basis for doing so. Ms. Ostly said she believed the applicant put all of the design features in the project in order to make it compatible with nearby lower density uses. She questioned whether the project would be better if it was smaller. She recalled there were some very plain, boxy little townhouses in the area that met the 40% lot coverage limit and she said the applicant’s project was clearly better than those. She noted the site was in the R-0 zone, which was where the City wanted more development. She said it and the townhouses across the alley from it provided a good transition. She recalled Infill Task Force participants had seen a lot coverage issue related to Downtown townhouses, so she believed the project was met the intent of the Infill ordinance. She said the applicant had made an extra effort to save the big trees, which would help address its scale. Mr. Needham indicated that her recollection of the Infill Task Force discussions was not evidence the Commission could base a decision on, however, he accepted the “transition” argument. He indicated he favored the overhanging eaves. Mr. Meisburger indicated the project still looked too massive. The Commissioners then discussed other issues. Ms. Stadnik said the arborist’s recommendations should be made conditions of approval. Mr. Meisburger suggested there should be no muttons on the doors, as they seemed odd to him. Staff related that the applicant had changed the railings to reflect the Commissioners’ suggestions, but had not yet had an opportunity to submit that additional information. The Commissioners agreed to allow him to do that. The applicant said he had “beefed up” the railings to make them look more like wood, and he had changed the color from black to iridescent dark green on the materials board. They said the entry door matched the head height of the windows on that level (see new Exhibit E23). They clarified that the floor-to-floor dimensions were now 10.5.” Staff suggested the following modification of Condition D(6): “Submit a Notice of Development Restriction,” to be recorded with the plat, for review and approval of staff, containing a matrix indicating 10 foot front, rear and side yard setbacks (except zero for attached walls), and lot coverage totaling no more than 54% over the five lots, and FAR for each lot (showing both square footage and percentages). Mr. Needham said he could agree to allow 40% lot coverage of the footprint, and additional coverage due to the architectural elements, such as overhangs and porches. Staff explained that although the applicant had presented lot coverage as footprint plus overhangs, the Code did not allow separating out those elements. Since the decks were 30-inches above grade, they had to be included in the calculation of lot coverage. Ms. Ostly cautioned that would set a precedent that changed lot coverage; however, staff explained the RID process was a process of designing and modifying the design. Ms. Binkley said if trees were a compatibility factor, and the majority of trees were removed, then the Commission would be setting a precedent for destroying compatibility in the neighborhood by allowing tree removal. To her, that superceded the issue of minimum density, because the applicant could meet the 40% lot coverage requirement, but still take down the majority of trees on the site. The applicant asked for approval of the design and the lot line adjustment together. They said they did not object to the staff-recommended modification of Condition D(6). Mr. Needham moved to approve the property line adjustment between Tax Lots 8900 and 8800, and the five-lot Planned Development Review Permit to construct five townhouses, with a 14% exception to the 40% lot coverage standard in order to increase it from an average of 40% to an average of 54% under Residential Infill Design Review standards, and removal of seven trees to accommodate the development, subject to the conditions of approval as amended by staff at the hearing. Ms. Stadnik seconded the motion, and it failed 3:2, with Commissioners Binkley, Meisburger and Needham voting against, and Commissioners Stadnik and Vice Chair Ostly voting yes. Mr. Needham then moved to deny the request for a property line adjustment between Tax Lots 8900 and 8800 , and to deny the request for a Development Review Permit for a for a five-lot Planned Development; the 14% exception to the 40% lot coverage standard; and removal of seven trees to accommodate the development. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed 3:2, with Commissioners Binkley, Meisburger and Needham voting yes, and Commissioner Stadnik and Vice Chair Ostly voting against. Mr. Pishvaie summarized that staff heard the reasons for denial were design review concerns related to lot coverage and that Ms. Binkley wanted to save more trees. Mr. Boone announced the final vote would be held on April 17, 2006. ================================================================ LU 05-0084, a request by Mary Jo Avery and Avamere Lake Oswego Investors, LLC. The hearing had been continued to April 17, 2006, at the applicant’s request. New public testimony on all applicable criteria was to be permitted at the April 17th public hearing. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS Staff announced there was to be a joint DRC/Planning Commission/Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee meeting on April 17, 2006, to discuss the Lake Grove Village Center Plan. ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Vice Chair Ostly adjourned the meeting at 9:15 pm. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Dillinger Administrative Assistant L\drc\minutes\04-03-06.doc