Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2016-07-18 APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 18, 2016 Page 1 of 7 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes Monday, July 18, 2016 The Commissioners convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 A Avenue. Members present: Vice Chair David Poulson, Paden Prichard, Kirk Smith, Jeff Shearer and David Rabbino. Members absent: Chair Brent Ahrend and Kelly Melendez. Staff present: Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support. MINUTES Mr. Rabbino moved to approve the Minutes of April 18, 2016. Mr. Prichard seconded the motion and it passed 4:0:1. Mr. Prichard abstained. Mr. Shearer moved to approve the Minutes of May 2, 2016. Mr. Rabbino seconded the motion and it passed 3:0:2. Mr. Prichard and Mr. Smith abstained. FINDINGS LU 16-0024, a request by Lake Oswego School District for the first of three annual reviews of the Traffic Management Plan for Rivergrove Elementary School. The site is located at: 5850 McEwan Rd. (Tax Lot 300 of Tax Map 21E 19BA). The staff coordinator is Debra Andreades, Senior Planner. Mr. Rabbino moved to approve the findings as presented. Mr. Shearer seconded the motion and it passed 3:1:1. Mr. Prichard abstained. PUBLIC HEARING LU 16-0013: a request by the City of Lake Oswego for approval of a Conditional Use permit in order to allow an institutional use in a historic landmark; a minor variance to reduce the required yard for an institutional use; a minor alteration of an historic landmark for the construction of a fence, light pole and parking lot; and the removal of one tree to construct site improvements. Location of Property: 40 Wilbur St. (Tax Lots 4400 of Tax Map 21E 10 AD). The staff coordinator is Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner. Vice Chair Poulson opened the hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria and procedure. Each Commissioner present related his/her business/occupation. Mr. Prichard, Mr. Poulson and Mr. Smith reported making a specific site visit prior to the initial hearing. No one challenged any Commissioner’s ability to consider the application. Staff Report APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 18, 2016 Page 2 of 7 Ms. Hamilton pointed out that three additional exhibits had been received that afternoon, including two letters of support and one in opposition, which have been provided to the Commissioners. Ms. Hamilton noted the applicant is requesting approval of the following: • A Conditional Use permit in order to allow an institutional use in a historic landmark; • A Minor Variance to reduce the required yard for an institutional use from 13.33 feet to 12 feet on the west side; • A minor alteration of a historic landmark for the construction of site improvements, including a fence, light pole and parking area; and • The removal of one tree. The site is located on the south side of Wilbur Street in Old Town and is in the R-DD zone. Ms. Hamilton provided an overview and photos of the site. She showed the proposed site plan and described the proposed improvements and materials, including the lighting and new fence which meet the design criteria. She noted the new sidewalk along W ilbur would blend in with the existing adjacent sidewalk and pointed out where the 12-inch tree proposed for removal and the area where the minor variance is requested (an existing setback of 12-feet). Ms. Hamilton reviewed the criteria for approval for a Conditional Use (General), as follow: • Requirements of the zone are met; • Site is physically capable of accommodating the use; and • Functional characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the uses in the vicinity. She stated the staff report goes into detail regarding how the proposed use meets the requirements of the zone, noting that it exceeds landscaping and open space standards and provides the required parking on-site. She added that the functional characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with surrounding residential neighborhood. Ms. Hamilton stated that as discussed in the staff report and supporting documents, the proposed use is estimated to generate about 30 trips per week, which is much less than a single-family dwelling, which generates approximately 10 trips per day, so the use is functionally compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Hamilton then reviewed the criteria for approval for a Conditional Use permit (Institutional), as follows: • Utilities, streets or other necessary improvements shall be provided by the agency constructing the use; • If access is to a local residential street, traffic study is required; • Lot area shall be sufficient to allow yards that are at least 2/3 the height of the structure; • Lighting shall avoid glare on residential uses; and • Operation levels shall avoid conflict with adjacent uses where practical. She pointed out that one standard was not met, noting the cottage height is 20 feet which requires a setback of 13.33 feet (2/3 the height of the structure). She added that the front, rear and east side setbacks exceed 13.33 feet, but the existing west side setback is 12 feet. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce this setback. She described how the proposed lighting for the rear parking area is shielded from adjacent residential uses. Ms. Hamilton reviewed the criteria for approval for a Minor Variance, as follows: • Will not be detrimental to public health or safety; • Will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements within 300 feet; APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 18, 2016 Page 3 of 7 • Will have little or no negative impact on the streetscape (e.g. pedestrian environment or other aspects of the public realm that contribute to the neighborhood character); and • Will not adversely affect the existing physical and natural systems such as traffic, drainage, Oswego Lake, hillsides, sensitive lands, historic resources, parks or the ability of abutting properties to use solar energy devices. She noted that a setback reduction of up to 20% is considered a Minor Variance, with the request being for a setback reduction of 10%. She added that, as identified in the Staff Report, all of the criteria have been easily met. Ms. Hamilton reviewed the criteria for approval of Modifications to a Historic Landmark, as follows: • No change in the appearance or material of the resource as it exists; or • Alteration duplicates or restores the affected exterior features and materials as determined from historic photos, building plans or similar; or • An ESEE analysis demonstrates that the benefit to the community of preserving the resource outweighs the benefit of preserving the resource in its present condition. She stated the cottage was built around 1880 and is a Historic Landmark. She pointed out that at least one of the above standards must be met, which is the case with this proposal because it does not include any changes to the appearance or material of the resource as it exists. She added that the only feature of historic significance on the site is the cottage itself, and that the proposed site improvements do not affect the appearance of the building. Ms. Hamilton stated that staff recommends approval of LU 16-0013 subject to the conditions identified in the July 6, 2016 staff report. Questions of Staff In response to a question from Mr. Smith about the tree, Ms. Hamilton clarified that the tree is proposed for removal for landscaping improvements, not for site improvements such as the new fence and lighting, and was analyzed under the Type II Criteria, which allows tree removal in conjunction with major or minor development when four criteria are met, as outlined in the Staff Report. Mr. Smith pointed out the staff report stated the tree was proposed for removal to provide better visual access to the cottage. Ms. Hamilton agreed this would be one result but that the tree was also proposed for removal because it is not a very healthy tree and she noted that it is the smallest tree on the site at 12-inches. Mr. Rabbino asked what is going to be gained or remedied by taking the tree out in terms of visual access. Ms. Hamilton noted it would open the view, and added that, as stated in the applicant’s narrative, the tree not very healthy and is suckering and appears to be under stress in its current location. In response to a question if staff had done an evaluation of the tree in terms of it health, Ms. Hamilton stated that her review was focused on whether the proposed removal met the removal criteria. Mr. Prichard asked if staff did an evaluation of drainage around the cottage in relation to the installation of the sidewalk and the slope down to the cottage. Ms. Hamilton replied that the sidewalk will be designed to the street, and noted that rain drains were added around the perimeter of the cottage in 2011, as gutters could not be installed due to its historic designation. Regarding trip generation, Mr. Poulson inquired about the estimated 30 vehicle trips per week, which would be approximately six trips per workday week, and if that was why three parking spaces were proposed in the back. Ms. Hamilton clarified that the number of parking spaces required is based on the use, which is Institutional, and size of the building, which is 780 square feet, thus requiring 2.4 parking space, which is rounded up to three. Ms. Hamilton noted that the lease agreement shows what is expected in terms of operation hours and days of use. Mr. Poulson wondered if APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 18, 2016 Page 4 of 7 overflow traffic for use of the small meeting space could affect the surrounding area in terms of on- street parking as there would only be three spots on the site, to which Ms. Hamilton clarified that the meeting space can fit up to 10 people and that the parking standards are not intended to accommodate all potential needed parking on site. She added there would also be bike parking as well as on-street parking on Wilbur. Mr. Poulson wondered if there are regular meetings parking could become an issue, to which Ms. Hamilton noted that the small size of the cottage and meeting space would self-limit how many vehicles would be in the area. Mr. Prichard observed that the sidewalk is on City property and the new steps are also on City property, and expressed concern about safety of the steps as designed. He wondered if City staff had reviewed that construction detail and determined that it is suitable in terms of City liability. Ms. Hamilton responded that the Building Department had reviewed the application but did not have any comments. She added that Building would review in more detail when the building permit is submitted to ensure Code compliance, including ADA. Mr. Prichard expressed concern about the hard metal edge of the steps as designed. Mr. Boone clarified that potential City liability is not one of the Commission’s review criteria, to which Mr. Prichard requested that his concerns about the design and potential liability become part of the record. Applicant Jordan Wheeler, Deputy City Manager, City of Lake Oswego; Marylou Colver, President, Lake Oswego Preservation Society; and Rob Dortignacq, Project Architect. Mr. Wheeler noted he is the City’s project manager for Iron Worker’s Cottage project. He provided background information about the historic Worker’s Cottage, noting it was purchased in 2002 by the City to preserve one of the last remaining examples of company worker housing. He noted the Cottage was built about 1880 or so to provide housing for workers at the Iron Furnace in George Rogers Park. He added that the Cottage was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2009, and today is an important stop on the Iron Heritage Trail. Also the site is now within the newly established State Willamette Falls Heritage area. He added there was a preservation plan completed in 2009 for the site, which included recommendations to stabilize the structure and restore it to its historic intent and style. Since that time, the City has overseen the restoration of the Cottage and also making it so it can be occupied for future use. A citizen workgroup was formed in 2012 to make recommendations regarding the Cottage’s future use. Mr. Wheeler noted that one outcome of the 2012 work was the designation of the property as an archeological site, which comes into play when doing work on the site in terms of digging or ground disturbance. He shared an image of the interpretive sign located in front of the Cottage, which will be moved to a new, more accessible location as part of this project. Mr. Wheeler provided an overview of the Preservation Plan for the Cottage, which was a three- phased project to stabilize the structure, restore some of its historic features (such as windows and the porches), and rehabilitate with an ADA-accessible front entry and bathroom and other tenant improvements. He added that all of the work done has been funded with hotel/motel tax revenue, which is intended for tourism-related activities. He shared some before and after pictures of the work done to date. He added that an open house would be held when the work is complete and that the required neighborhood meeting for the current application was held at the Cottage. Mr. Wheeler provided the recommendation of the future use workgroup, which the City Council endorsed, which was to retain ownership of the Cottage and lease it to a non-profit organization. He added that the City issued an RFP in 2015 to garner interest by non-profit tenants, with one proposal received from the Lake Oswego Preservation Society. Since then the lease agreement has been negotiated (with members of the City’s Historic Resources Advisory Board and City Council on behalf of the City) and have come to agreement on a tentative lease contingent upon the outcome of the Conditional Use permit and Council approval of the lease. APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 18, 2016 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Wheeler provided an overview of the proposed use of the Cottage, which will be a mix of public access and use, as follow: • 400 open hours minimum, • Standing hours and open by appointment, and • City meetings scheduled on an ad-hoc basis. He added that the meeting space in the Cottage is for eight to ten people, with a maximum occupancy of 25 people. Mr. Wheeler added there might be larger tour groups or larger Preservation Society events on an occasional basis. For Preservation Society use, the Cottage is proposed for monthly Board meetings, ancillary office work, event planning, exhibit work, and training sessions. He noted that several of the Board members live in the neighborhood so could walk to meetings rather than drive, reducing the parking needs. Mr. Wheeler provided some additional information regarding the site plan and proposed improvements. He noted that rear parking area would use pervious pavers and a brick access aisle will be built to provide ADA access via the front door, with a ramp up onto the porch. He noted the new lighting and sidewalk in the front, and the proposed tree removal. Regarding the tree proposed for removal, he shared that the City’s beautification staff provided feedback on the condition of the trees on the site, with the one proposed for removal to create a more cleaned-up site and increase the view of the Cottage from the sidewalk, while maintain the larger, more healthy trees, though an official arborist’s report was not done. The tree removed would be replaced. He pointed out that the sidewalk in the front would jog to accommodate the grade change and provide space for the proposed picket fence. Questions of Applicant Mr. Prichard encouraged the applicant to consider making changes to the stairway riser detail to make it safer, especially the steel edge. Mr. Dortignacq provided additional information about the proposed stairway design, noting they were trying to keep it simple and in keeping with the vernacular architecture. In response to whether the tree proposed for removal was evaluated in winter or when flowering, Mr. Wheeler noted the tree was probably looked at in the winter. Mr. Dortignacq added that this type of tree can do well in the right conditions, but in this location was starting to sucker and send up additional shoots from its root system, leading to a potential ongoing maintenance issue. When asked about the proposed replacement Dogwood tree, Mr. Wheeler noted it would not have a larger canopy, which was intentional in an effort to keep branches off of the Cottage’s roof and other long-term maintenance concerns. When asked if the tree proposed for removal was indigenous or brought in, Mr. Dortignacq confirmed it was not a native species. He added they did look at native trees for its replacement and their choice was based on feedback from City staff based on City tree planting guidelines. When asked if it the photo showed English ivy on the site, Mr. Wheeler responded that while it is English ivy, which is invasive, the ivy currently screens a retaining wall. Mr. Dortignacq added that since the site is an archeological site, they are hesitant to do more digging and planting than is necessary on the site, adding that any ground disturbance requires a State permit and monitoring. In response to a question about where the mitigation tree would be planted, Mr. Wheeler confirmed it would be planted on the west side. In response to whether or not a street tree could count as the mitigation, Ms. Hamilton clarified that a street tree cannot be used as mitigation and that street tree replacement falls under separate standards. Public Testimony Proponents Susanna Kuo, 15 Cellini Ct., Lake Oswego, OR, expressed her support for the Commission to approve the application to use historic Workers Cottage as a small museum and for meeting APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 18, 2016 Page 6 of 7 space. This use is in keeping with the historic significance of the house, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. She added that when the whole process started when the City acquired the Cottage and began to decide what to do with it, a decision was made to keep it at its current location. She continued that a historic building is much more significant when left at its original site and if the building is moved it could lose its historic designation. She provided information about the Cottage’s inclusion on the Iron Heritage Trail and its inclusion on the official map of the Willamette Falls Heritage trail. She congratulated the City for having the foresight to preserve such a humble dwelling, the last of several built by the Iron Company for its workers. She opined the Lake Oswego Preservation Society was an appropriate occupant for the building and that having the Cottage open to the public would be an important part of heritage tourism in the area, with many visitors walking to the Cottage as part of the walking route from George Rogers Park. She opined that the level of visitors would be small in comparison to the Arts Festival, ball games in the park, or the fitness center in the nearby shopping mall. She added that the Cottage would provide an excellent way for visitors to get a sense of what life was like living in a 700 square foot home in an iron-making village of 100 people in the 1880’s. She concluded that the Lake Oswego Preservation Society would be an excellent tenant and caretaker of the property, and urged the Commission to approve the application. Opponents None Neither for nor Against Richard Taggert, 30 Wilbur St., Lake Oswego, OR, stated he lives next door to the Cottage. He noted he has been in the Cottage and is glad it has been restored and is in support of preserving historic buildings. He stated that he is concerned about the native hazel tree located between the two properties, and thinks it should be considered for removal at the same time as the other tree. He added that it is unclear exactly which side of the property line the tree is located on as it has multiple trunks and is encroaching on and threatening the health of other trees. He opined this would be a practical time to consider what to do with that hazel, which was certainly not part of the original Cottage, and its removal would enhance the construction of the sidewalk, which he supports being put into place. When asked about the location of the hazel tree, Mr. Taggert clarified that part of it is on his property and part is on City property, and that its exact location needs to be determined. When asked, Mr. Boone clarified that since the hazel tree removal was not part of the original application, the Commission could not make a recommendation regarding that tree’s removal. Mr. Boone further clarified that if Mr. Taggert would like to apply for a tree removal permit he could do so in conjunction with the City, as the tree crosses the property line, which would require notice to other neighbors. Mr. Boone suggested Mr. Taggert talk with the City’s project manager, Jordan Wheeler. Ms. Numanoglu added that under current City code, anything with a diameter greater than 5-inches requires a removal permit, but that under the proposed revisions to the Tree Code, soon to be adopted by the City Council, removal of a multi- stem trunked tree like a hazelnut would not require a permit Rebuttal None Questions of Applicant None APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 18, 2016 Page 7 of 7 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. Vice Chair Poulson opened deliberations. Mr. Smith expressed his confusion about the proposed tree removal and whether or not tree removal is permitted as part of landscaping, noting another application where tree removal was not allowed for landscaping purposes. Ms. Numanoglu provided clarifying information, stating that in the past an aesthetic issue or concern about a tree has been considered valid. She added that staff’s findings conclude that tree removal will not significantly negatively impact the aesthetics of the area, but that it’s up to the Commission to determine if enough evidence has been presented. She added that proposed amendments to the Tree Code will better define and clarify this part of the code, leaving it less dependent upon interpretation in the future. Mr. Rabbino also expressed concerns that the Code is not clear in relation to the tree removal. He noted that it is in the record that there are some health issues with the tree, in addition to the aesthetic concerns. He added that he wished the staff report had addressed the tree removal more fully and had provided additional information regarding the health of the tree. Mr. Poulson agreed that while the tree is proposed for removal for landscaping purposes as allowed by the Code, he also would have liked information from an arborist regarding the health of the tree. Mr. Rabbino requested that going forward staff reports contain dates on all photographs, such as the photo of tree proposed for removal, which looks like it was taken in winter. Mr. Rabbino added that he would also request that photos included with a staff report accurately represent the site as close as possible to current conditions when the Commission is reviewing the application. He noted these steps would make him far more comfortable looking at packets from a completion and consistency point of view, giving him more confidence in the materials being presented. Mr. Boone clarified that the staff is under no obligation to produce evidence for the applicant, and that if staff were to go out and take photographs there could be allegations related to what is and is not represented. Mr. Rabbino agreed he understood and clarified that staff could request that dates be included on photos from applicants or that information about when a photo was taken be provided as part of the applicant’s materials. Mr. Rabbino moved to approve the application LU 16-0013 as conditioned by staff. Mr. Shearer seconded the motion and it was passed 5:0. The vote on the findings, conclusions and order was scheduled on August 1, 2016 at 6 pm. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Poulson adjourned the meeting at 8:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader /s/ Janice Bader Administrative Support