Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2006-12-04 (02)  City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes December 4, 2006   CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 “A” Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. ROLL CALL Commissioners present besides Chair Tierney were Vice Chair Sheila Ostly, Nan Binkley and Bob Needham. Commissioners Halliday Meisburger and Krytsyna Stadnik were excused. Staff present were Stephen Lashbrook, Community Development Manager; Debra Andreades, Associate Planner; Jessica Sarver, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Jean Hall, Administrative Support. MINUTES Ms. Ostly moved to approve the Minutes of July 17, 2006. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER (None) PUBLIC HEARING LU 06-0031, a request by Homes with Style, Inc., for modification of a previously approved Development Permit (LU 05-0001) to reduce the 72-foot northerly side yard setback on Parcel 1 (the rear flag lot) to 38 feet. The site is located at 645 Country Club Road, Tax Lot 1900 of Tax Map 21E 04DA. The hearing had been continued from November 20, 2006. 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. The only declarations were that Ms. Ostly reported she had heard Jim Bolland discuss related issues at an Infill Task Force meeting the prior week; and Chair Tierney reported that he had asked the applicant for permission to visit the site the previous day. They both clarified they could decide the case without bias. Each Commissioner reported his/her business or occupation as follows: Ostly (real estate appraiser); Binkley (architect); Needham (lawyer); and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business). No one present challenged any commissioner’s right to hear the application. No one responded when Chair Tierney asked if the applicant was present. Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated November 9, 2006 and Staff Memorandum dated December 1, 2006). She advised staff had found that a letter from Eric Tuppan dated November 29, 2006, (Exhibit G210) was new evidence, however, it had been submitted after the deadline for submitting new evidence. The Commissioners voted to exclude Exhibit G210 from the record after a “show of hands” vote. The Commissioners first considered whether the application was a “minor modification,” or a “major modification” of the previously approved permit. Ms. Ostly said the application was a “minor modification” because it did not raise the bar to the level of a “major modification.” Ms. Binkley agreed, and explained that if it were a “major modification” that would require the evidence to show there was a reason to reconsider all the previously-partitioned parcels, or that there would be a substantial impact to a natural area, when the evidence did not show that. Mr. Needham indicated that he agreed with Ms. Binkley. Chair Tierney said he agreed the application was a “minor modification” because the reduced setback the applicant asked for was still in excess of the minimum setback required in the zone. He observed a consensus that the applicant proposed a “minor change.” The Commissioners then considered whether the application met the criteria for modification of an approved development permit. Chair Tierney observed a consensus that the proposal did not increase the intensity or density of use after Ms. Ostly observed that the proposed modification would simply allow a single family house to be a little larger, but it would not increase the number of dwelling units and average daily vehicle trips. Mr. Needham and Ms. Binkley agreed with Ms. Ostly. The Commissioners then considered whether the application met the criterion that applicable standards and legal requirements had been met. Ms. Ostly recalled staff had reported that previous applicants had imposed the larger setback on themselves, and she noted that the currently proposed setback was stricter than the R-7.5 zone standard. Mr. Needham questioned whether this criterion applied to an agreement between neighbors referred to in testimony. Ms. Binkley said it was clear from the staff report that the 10-foot rear setback had been set to protect the RCPA, but that the 72-foot northerly side setback was not intended to protect the resource. The Commissioners then discussed Ms. Binkley’s suggestion to require a house design that was “kinder” to the neighbors across the narrower rear setback. They wondered whether a “minor modification” approval could include such an impact-mitigating condition. Staff confirmed that the Code regulated the side wall plain, but not the rear wall plain. Mr. Needham observed that the applicant could do that voluntarily. Chair Tierney observed the applicant was not present at the hearing. Ms. Ostly anticipated that if the side setback were reduced, the side of the house might be extended as far as 30 more feet, and the rear wall would be extended also. She noted that might result in a very large, unbroken, rear wall plain. Staff observed the original process hearing had not identified or considered such an issue and that decision had not dealt with the design of the house. The Commissioners then considered whether the requested change could affect any ”other legal requirement” under the second part of LOC 5086.025. They recalled opponents’ contention that the previously imposed development restrictions were a legal requirement that could not be modified by any party, including the City. However, Mr. Boone advised that the recorded notice of development restrictions had been called for in the previously approved conditions of approval of the partition in order to alert future innocent purchasers. He advised that the subject setback restriction could be amended with the consent of the City through the current modification application. Mr. Needham recalled testimony that the larger setback had been the result of an agreement between neighbors. Staff clarified that they understood the larger setback had been proposed by the previous applicants and staff was not aware of any third party agreement to that effect. Chair Tierney then observed there was nothing in the record about such an agreement except the Tuppans’ testimony that there was such an understanding; there was no evidence that staff was aware of any agreement by the Tuppans and the prior owner. Ms. Binkley observed that the current request was for a larger setback than the zone’s minimum setback. Mr. Needham recalled that there had been no basis for finding that a 72-foot setback should be imposed. Ms. Andreades related that staff had learned from experience and no longer recommended setbacks as shown on a site plan, but used the zone setbacks unless there was a specific reason not to. Chair Tierney noted that the Community Development Director had submitted a November 27, 2006, memorandum that confirmed the 72-foot setback was not intended to protect the resource, but had been voluntarily imposed by the land-partition applicant. Chair Tierney concluded that meant the City could modify it. The Commissioners then considered whether the requested modification could have a significant effect on other property or uses. Mr. Needham questioned how the request could affect others if the applicant was asking for less than what the Code would have allowed. Ms. Binkley observed the house footprint could meet the zone standards. Chair Tierney noted that no one had testified that they had made a decision based on the development restriction. The Commissioners then considered whether the change would cause any deterioration or loss of any natural feature, process or open space. Ms. Binkley observed the record showed a clearly delineated resource area and the application would not reduce it. Ms. Ostly observed that the applicant had designed the house footprint around and outside the RCPA. Mr. Needham said the City had identified the protected area and that meant the house had to be positioned outside the resource and in the corner of the lot against the setback. Chair Tierney advised that the applicant was required to protect at least 50% of the RC District that was most significant, and he had protected 54% of it in the western part of the resource, which staff had found was the most significant. He indicated that he generally believed it was important to consider what was on adjacent property, even if it were not within the City limits, but in this case, the resource protection area had already been identified and set aside and it would be difficult to change that, so he concluded the criterion was met. Ms. Binkley noted that identification and protection of the resource area had been considered and decided during the original partitioning process. Chair Tierney recalled staff had testified the application met the criterion that it would not significantly affect any public facility. The Commissioners considered the criterion that the change would not affect any condition specifically placed on the development by action of a hearing body or City Council. They recalled staff had explained that staff, and not a hearing body, had approved the partition. The Commissioners then considered the request for tree removal. Chair Tierney recalled that the Code allowed removal for development purposes. He observed that if the Commission allowed the requested side yard setback adjustment, trees within the larger house footprint could be removed. Ms. Binkley observed that a large percentage of the total trees on the site would be saved. The Commissioners then considered Ms. Binkley’s suggestion to apply the Code’s side yard wall plain standard to the rear elevation of the house. Mr. Boone confirmed that if the Commissioners were inclined to approve the requested side yard setback modification and they anticipated it could result in a longer rear wall plain, they could impose a condition to mitigate a large blank wall plane. Ms. Binkley moved to approve LU 06-0031, with an additional condition that imposed the side yard wall plane standard on the rear elevation. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would be held on December 18, 2006. ================================================================ LU 06-0029, a request by Stoneridge Customer development, LLC, for approval of a 12-lot single-family residential Planned Development and the removal of 72 trees. The site is located at west end of Frost Street (Tax Lot 2100 of Tax Map 2 1E 18BB). The hearing had been continued from the November 20, 2006, DRC meeting. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to declare 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 only declarations were that Ms. Ostly reported that she had appraised other properties owned by the applicant, and Chair Tierney reported that he had driven to the site, but had not walked it, or drawn any conclusions from that visit. Each Commissioner reported his/her business or occupation as follows: Ostly (real estate appraiser); Binkley (architect); Needham (lawyer); and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business). No one present challenged any commissioner’s right to hear the application. Ken Sandblast, Planning Resources, 7160 SW Fir Loop, Ste. 201, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, the applicant’s representative, waived their right to additional time to submit a final written argument. Jessica Sarver, Associate Planner, had reported in her November 30, 2006, Memorandum that a letter from Timothy Horst dated November 24, 2006, and received on November 29, 2006 (Exhibit G204) was new evidence, however, it had been submitted after the deadline for submitting new evidence. Mr. Needham and Ms. Binkley said the Commission should be consistent in excluding testimony that was not received by the deadline. Mr. Needham moved to exclude Exhibit G204 from the record. Chair Tierney observed a consensus not to consider it. Deliberations Chair Tierney recalled that the application seemed to meet all Development Code requirements and the applicant had indicated they agreed to the staff recommended conditions of approval, and that they were willing to work with the staff regarding the cul-de-sac. He recalled that opponents’ testimony had not addressed applicable Code provisions the Commission had to consider in making a decision. Ms. Ostly indicated she agreed with Chair Tierney that the application met the Code, even though she was concerned about the negative impacts to neighbors described in testimony. However, she saw some exaggeration regarding setbacks in their letters and she believed the houses on the site would also serve as buffers. She noted the subdivision had been fitted into the topography and protected the appropriate amount of open space. Chair Tierney recalled testimony that the applicant planned to place the Open space over land that was un-buildable anyway, but he said he understood that builders did build on steep slopes and the open space was well placed where it would also serve to buffer neighbors. Ms. Binkley commented that it was difficult for her to see projects such as this one proposed in residentially zoned areas in locations that had seemed to serve as parks until they were developed, and would generate increased traffic. She said many people did not understand that a PD could have less than zone standard lots if it also provided appropriate open space. She said the Commission typically liked to see a developer offer more open space than they were required to. She noted the Code also required the proposal to meet Solar Access requirements. But she agreed the current application met the Code provisions that the Commission had to base its decision on. Mr. Needham indicated that he agreed with Ms. Binkley’s comments. He advised that the developer was allowed to use the site the way the law allowed, and the appropriate time to contest zoning was when it was proposed to be applied to an area. Ms. Ostly moved to approve LU 06-0029, subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would be conducted on December 18, 2006. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS (None) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 8:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jean Hall Administrative Support L\drc\minutes\12-04-06 draft.doc