Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2016-02-01 APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of February 1, 2016 Page 1 of 6 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes Monday, February 1, 2016 The Commissioners convened at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 A Avenue. Commissioner Kelly Melendez was elected Acting Chair. Members present: Kelly Melendez, Paden Prichard, Kirk Smith, Jeff Shearer and David Rabbino. Chair Brent Ahrend and Vice Chair David Poulson were excused. Staff present: Scot Siegel, Planning & Building Services Director; Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Assistant City Attorney; and Jean Hall, Administrative Support. MINUTES Mr. Prichard moved to approve the Minutes of December 7, 2015. Mr. Rabbino seconded the motion and it passed 4:0:2. Mr. Shearer abstained. Mr. Smith voted to approve the portion of the minutes related to the portion of the meeting he had participated in. He abstained in regard to the remainder. FINDINGS TR 499-15-05916 [AP 15-08]: An appeal by Thomas and Kathleen Rastetter of a tentative decision by Planning & Building Services Department on a Type II tree removal application to remove a 36- inch Douglas fir tree. Location of Property: 17360 Grand View Court (Tax Lot 505 of Tax Map 21E 04BC). The staff coordinator is Evan Fransted. Mr. Boone provided his January 26, 2016 Memorandum together with information on the legislative history of Ordinance 2059, which first enacted the “landscaping” criterion. He advised that the DRC could vote to take administrative notice of the Ordinance for the record. Mr. Prichard moved to take administrative notice of Ordinance 2059. Mr. Rabbino seconded. The motion passed 3:1:1. Mr. Smith voted no. Mr. Shearer abstained because he had not participated in the hearing. Mr. Prichard moved to approve TR 499-15-05916 [AP 15-08]-1885 Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr. Rabbino seconded the motion and it was passed 3:1:1. Mr. Smith voted no. Mr. Shearer abstained. PUBLIC HEARING LU 15-0061: A request by 4Streetlo, LLC, for approval of a 6-lot subdivision, a Development Review Permit for six townhomes in the Downtown Redevelopment Design District (DRDD), two design variances (an exception to the maximum height and an exception to the DRDD courtyard requirement), and the removal of 10 trees. Location of Property: 642, 550, 552, 560 & 562 4th Street, (Tax Lots 1600 & 1700 or Tax Map 21E03DC). The staff coordinator is Johanna Hastay. Acting Chair Melendez opened the hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria and procedure. Each Commissioner present related his/her business/occupation. Mr. Prichard, Mr. APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of February 1, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Smith and Ms. Melendez each reported making a specific site visit. No one challenged any Commissioner’s ability to consider the application. Staff Report Ms. Hastay discussed the January 22, 2016 Staff Report and January 27, 2016 Staff Memorandum. The memorandum recommended modifications to the originally recommended conditions of approval in the staff report. The applicant had asked for some modifications to the recommended conditions (see their letter in Exhibit F-11). After the First Addition-Forest Hills Neighborhood Association had expressed concern that the third floor trellises extended too far out and added too much mass (see their letter in Exhibit G-100) the applicant had submitted a revised front elevation (Exhibit E-17) that set the roof decks further back. Ms. Hastay discussed that staff now recommended approval of the requested courtyard design variance (as discussed in the Memorandum). Mr. Boone distributed copies of his February 1, 2016 email correspondence with Mr. Smith regarding why DRDD design variance criteria did not apply to the proposed courtyards. Staff supported granting the requested variance to height because it was only along a small portion of the roof within a portion of the front of the property where the height limit was 35 feet due to proximity to the R-6 zone across the street. The Engineering Department did not support the proposed angled parking because the amount of necessary additional right-of- way dedication did not justify the gain of only one or two spaces. Staff found that none of the trees to be removed were significant. Staff recommended Condition (C.2.a) to bring the exterior cladding on the ground floor side and rear facades of all units into compliance with Building Design - Exterior Cladding standards that called for a masonry ground floor. Ms. Hastay pointed out the masonry shown on only the front façade (the east elevation). She reported that the applicant was asking the DRC not to require them to utilize “ledge stone” on all elevations. Their letter discussed that the Exterior Cladding standard required bricks, blocks, stucco and glass to be the ‘predominant building material’ for ground floor walls. They noted the code did not define “predominant”. They held it meant only the portion of the ground floor of the building that was noticeable from the street. Ms. Hastay advised that the standard was clear and objective. It did not make a distinction related to the material being visible or not visible from the street. Staff recommended retaining Condition C.2.a but adding the word “predominantly” so the condition called for all units to be “predominantly ledge stone.” Staff recommended approval of the application as conditioned in the January 22 and January 27, 2016 staff report and memorandum. Questions of staff Ms. Hastay clarified that the spaces above the garages could not be rented as secondary dwellings because the EC Zone did not allow secondary dwelling use. She acknowledged that what amount/percentage of the ground floor had to be masonry material in order to meet the condition calling for ‘predominantly’ masonry material on the ground floor was subject to interpretation. She referred to the elevations, relating that staff did not think that material appeared to be predominant on the ground floor. She clarified that staff had agreed the original design met the requirement for complex massing but the applicant had subsequently pulled the trellises back because the neighborhood association perception was it created too much mass. When asked if the dawn redwood tree was a significant specimen tree that could be saved Ms. Hastay indicated staff did not find it significant enough to retain when it was very close to a walkway and patio. She explained that staff was not requiring a 7.5’ wide sidewalk because City and LORA staff had determined that a 5-foot wide sidewalk was consistent with residential development and streets in the area. She explained that street trees had to be on the inside of the sidewalk because that was where there was room for them. APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of February 1, 2016 Page 3 of 6 Applicant Andrew Tull, 3J Consulting, Inc. 5075 SW Griffith Dr., Ste. 150, Beaverton, Oregon (97005); Gabe Headrick, Steelhead Architecture; and Michael Robinson, Perkins Coie, LLP, 1120 NW Couch St., Tenth Floor, Portland, Oregon 97209 testified for the applicant. They asked the DRC to modify recommended Condition C.2.a which would call for the ground floor on all sides of the building to be predominantly ledge stone. They noted the code did not define “predominant.” They held the predominant building façade was the area the public would see. They mentioned that adding more ledge stone material would add significant cost. They indicated if the DRC imposed the condition the applicant would seek a definition of “predominantly”. They asked for approval of the revised front elevation, explaining they had revised it to move the third story trellises back in order to please the First Addition-Forest Hills Neighborhood Association. They clarified the rooms above the garages were considered bonus space and were not intended to be rental units unless the code was changed to allow rental units. They clarified that the dawn redwood was going to be removed because its roots would be impacted on three sides by a sidewalk, patio, and building. The applicant would mitigate for all removed trees. They explained that the site was not close enough to an intersection to require a street light. They were required to provide a photometric plan. If it showed additional lighting was needed in front of the building they would provide it in the form of wall sconces. Questions of Applicant Ms. Hastay advised that the Engineering Department would require street lights instead of wall sconces if the photometric analysis showed the need for more lighting. . The applicant responded to a question regarding whey they needed to have such a tall building so close to the park and other very low buildings. They indicated they needed the proposed height. In a discussion about the type of trees they proposed along the sidewalk the applicant indicated they were willing to look at other types of trees that did not impact use of decks and would provide a canopy over the sidewalk. The applicant indicated that they would not agree to a condition requiring a deed restriction prohibiting rental units over the garages, but they would not object to a condition to have CC&Rs that prohibited renting the spaces over the garages unless the code was changed to allow that use. The applicant clarified their primary issue was that the proposed placement of stone was related to the architectural design and they did not want to have to have stone wrapping all way around the building. The additional cost was a secondary issue. Public testimony Proponents Carole Ockert, Chair of First Addition/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association, indicated the Association supported the requested variance to height because it resulted in a better design that fit DRDD design standards. She related that it was widely known that the code would not allow the spaces above the garages to be used as secondary dwelling units. She indicated the Association was comfortable that the requirement to use predominantly masonry material on the ground floor had been met. She discussed that the projection of the third floor trellises in the applicant’s original design felt looming. She asked the DRC to condition approval of the application on the trellises being no further forward than the gabled roof projections. Opponents Jessie Santamaria, 584 4th St., discussed his concern that approval of the proposed development would change the feel of the neighborhood and set a precedent. His Craftsman style house would no longer look like part of the tapestry of the neighborhood. He discussed his concern that the redwood tree on the site was to be removed. It was a feature that a lot of pedestrians enjoyed. He discussed his concern that there could be drainage problems after the developer changed the grade in the location of the existing redwood tree and paved the alley. APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of February 1, 2016 Page 4 of 6 Neither for nor Against Cynthia Blanchard, 606 4th St. discussed her concerns that on-street parking issues were not mitigated; the sidewalk was heavily used so it needed to be wider, with trees located on the outside of the sidewalk; and street lights were necessary for security in the area. She related that the applicant had agreed to allow her to reuse materials from the house to be removed from the site and use them on her house. Rebuttal The applicant confirmed that they understood that the conditions would be modified to add the word “predominantly” to Condition C.2.a and to correct the deadline to submit the final plat to February 1, 2017. They asked for approval with the revised front elevation consistent with the new drawing in Exhibit E-17. They indicated they would be willing to plant up to three dawn redwoods in the park as additional mitigation trees because that type of tree was quite rare in the Northwest. In regard to the testimony from the two neighbors the applicant reminded the DRC that they were bound by the applicable approval criteria and staff had found their application met the criteria. They noted the two off-street parking spaces they were providing for each dwelling met the code that only required one space. They clarified they would comply with the condition of approval regarding lighting. They held the proposed development would be a welcome change in the neighborhood. The applicant had concluded that the site needed to change because the five existing rental units on the property were not in good enough condition to be rentals – they did not meet code or safety requirements – and they needed to come down. The applicant was willing to allow Ms. Blanchard to harvest usable materials to remodel the house on her own site. The applicant explained they were limited in their ability to widen the sidewalk on 4th Street because the existing right-of-way was 60 feet wide and mostly filled up with pavement for on-street parking and the travel lanes. They thought the City needed to address that section of road in a unified manner. Mr. Robinson indicated that the applicant would accept a condition calling for CC&Rs that prohibited use of the spaces above the garages as secondary dwelling units unless the code changed to allow them. Questions of Applicant None. Deliberations No one present asked for more time to submit additional written evidence or testimony. The applicant waived their right to additional time to submit a final written argument. Acting Chair Melendez opened deliberations. Mr. Rabbino indicated he thought the only issue was compliance with the code that called for masonry to be the predominant material for walls on the ground floor. He observed that the code did not distinguish between areas that were visible to the public and not visible to the public. He noted the code did not require stone to be the only thing on the ground floor, but it needed to be there and it needed to be “predominant.” Thus, the bulk or majority of the main material needed to extend around or offer a sense that it was the main material being used on the ground floor. The fact that it was not there except for the front of the building might not be compliance. He indicated there needed to be more of the material, but he would not say how much more or where it was to be. He indicated he thought the rest of the application met the code. He noted the applicant had moved the trellis back so it had a more acceptable appearance to the neighborhood. He noted removal of the redwood tree might be regrettable but removal complied with the code and the applicant was willing to plant more of those trees across the street. Ms. Hastay advised that the applicant could not plant the trees in the park as mitigation. If the applicant paid into the tree fund in lieu of one mitigation tree the Parks and Recreation Department APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of February 1, 2016 Page 5 of 6 could decide to use the money to plant dawn redwoods trees in the park or may use it to plant trees in another city open space. Mr. Shearer discussed that he could agree to the requested design variance for height because it was minor. He thought there had to be some stone on the elevations in order to meet the code - not just in front. He had no issue regarding the pergola. The Commissioners discussed the potential condition calling for the CC&Rs to prohibit using the space over the garage for secondary dwelling use. Mr. Rabbino did not think it was necessary because the code prohibited the use, but he suggested if the Commission imposed such a condition it could say that the CC&Rs were to prohibit it unless the code was changed to allow the use. Ms. Melendez indicated she thought the height variance was a reasonable request and she had no issue with regard to the trellises. The courtyard variance was acceptable because courtyards helped create a transition from private to public areas. In regard to the masonry ground floor requirement she noted the code did not specify that “predominantly” meant “as viewed by the public.” She discussed that the material needed to go around the sides at least a significant degree further, but she was not sure she would require entire wrap-around. Mr. Prichard indicated that he did not think the front entry courtyard on Lot 6 met the requirement that a courtyard was to be contained on three sides. Ms. Hastay clarified that staff now recommended removal of all conditions of approval related to a courtyard. Mr. Prichard discussed why he could not approve the application. He would not require the stone to go all the way around the building because the sides were private sides. The building did not fit the neighborhood. It was too massive for the site and did not meet the complex massing standard. He described ways it could be stepped and lowered to make it more palatable in that neighborhood and meet the complex massing standard. He noted that with the trellises stepped back the roof became even more predominant. He discussed that the sidewalk should be wider than proposed even if it was necessary to push the building back to accommodate it. It could jog around the dawn redwood, which should be saved with a change to entryway. He recalled the Evergreen Neighborhood considered a dawn redwood there a specimen tree. Mr. Boone discussed that the Commission should be prepared to provide findings based on tree code criteria related to negative impacts on the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood if they decided to require an alternative site design to preserve the tree. Mr. Rabbino noted the Commission had not been given enough evidence for such a finding. He recalled that the neighborhood association had testified that they supported the application. Mr. Smith indicated the trellis design was not an issue. He reasoned that if the code called for the stone to be predominant on the ground floor then there should be stone all the way around the building. He indicated this was a massive project but he was not sure how to evaluate whether it met the complex massing requirement. Mr. Rabbino discussed that he understood that complex massing meant breaking up the architecture so it was not so monolithic and included features such as peaks and gables and recessed courtyards. He indicated he thought as a layperson that the applicant had done enough to break it up in front to create complex massing. Mr. Shearer indicated that he had no issue with the proposed trellis design or the proposed courtyard and height variances. He related that even though he would like to see the redwood tree saved the code allowed the applicant to remove it, and the Commission had not heard evidence that supported the kind of findings that Mr. Boone had discussed. He discussed that the slight stepping down that Mr. Prichard suggested would not make much difference in the appearance of mass, as the grade change under the building was approximately only three feet. He observed that the code called for stone on the first floor but it was not shown on the sides. APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of February 1, 2016 Page 6 of 6 Mr. Shearer related that the proposed width of sidewalk concerned him and he thought there was room for a wider sidewalk if the City gave the applicant a couple of feet. However, the City needed to look at how to make the entire block consistent and the applicant was within their rights to lay out the site as they had and not have to push the building back. Mr. Prichard discussed how he thought that the applicant could have a full 7.5’ width sidewalk with the street trees outside of it as the DRDD called for. Mr. Boone advised the code called for 5-foot minimum width sidewalk when the use was residential and the location was in front of a residential lot. In regard to whether the Commission could require a wider sidewalk in order to mitigate the development’s impact on the system, he noted the site had previously had five units on it and the applicant was proposing to build six units, which was only one additional unit. In regard to requiring dedication of additional right-of-way he recalled the City Engineer had determined that was not warranted. Ms. Melendez indicated that she agreed with adding the word “predominantly” to Condition C.2.a as staff proposed. She clarified that meant the masonry should be significantly around the building. She did not agree with how the applicant interpreted the code provision. Mr. Rabbino moved to approve LU 15-0061 as staff recommended, including adding the word ‘predominantly’ to Condition C.2.a; requiring the trellises to be as proposed in Exhibit E-17; granting the courtyard and height variances; and correcting the deadline for submitting the final plat to February 1, 2017. While not a condition of approval all steps were to be taken to try to save the dawn redwood tree if it was possible. During the ensuing discussion Mr. Rabbino confirmed that he did not propose to impose a condition to require CC&Rs that prohibited SDUs as he saw no need for it. Mr. Smith seconded the motion and it was passed 4:1. Mr. Prichard voted no. The vote on the findings, conclusions and order was scheduled on February 17, 2016. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS Commissioners asked staff to look into why trees to be removed per LU 15-0061 had not been flagged, and why a lawn care service sign at Heritage House had been there so long. ADJOURNMENT Acting Chair Melendez adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Janice Reynolds Administrative Support