Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2016-08-15 APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 15, 2016 Page 1 of 9 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes Monday, August 15, 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, Kelly Melendez and David Rabbino. Members absent: Chair Brent Ahrend. Staff present: Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support. MINUTES Ms. Melendez moved to approve the Minutes of May 16, 2016. Mr. Shearer seconded the motion and it passed 4:1:1. Mr. Rabbino abstained. Ms. Melendez moved to approve the Minutes of June 6, 2016. Mr. Smith seconded the motion and it passed 4:0:2. Mr. Prichard and Mr. Shearer abstained. FINDINGS 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 construct of a fence, light pole and parking lot; and the removal of one tree to construct site improvements. The site is located at: 40 Wilbur St. (Tax Lots 4400 of Tax Map 21E 10 AD). The staff coordinator is Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner. Mr. Shearer moved to approve the findings as presented. Mr. Rabbino seconded the motion and it passed 5:0:1. Ms. Melendez abstained. PUBLIC HEARING LU 15-0074, a request by Dreambuilder Custom Homes, for approval of a two-parcel minor partition, a Development Review permit and Design Variances to construct two zero-lot line dwellings, and the removal of nine trees to construct the development. The site is located at: 594 4th Street (Tax Lot 1400 of Tax Map 21E 03 DC). 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, Ms. Melendez, Mr. Poulson, Mr. Smith and Mr. Shearer reported making a specific site visit prior to the initial hearing. No one challenged any Commissioner’s ability to consider the application. APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 15, 2016 Page 2 of 9 Staff Report Ms. Hamilton reviewed the new Exhibits introduced into the record, including additional public comments that came in after the staff report was finalized and new evidence from staff. She briefly described the new additions, including a number of letters in opposition (Exhibits G-200, G-201, and G-202) and the City’s evidence in response, including an excerpt from Best Management Practices used by the City and its contract arborist related to tree impacts and a staff report from a tree appeal related to development in the zone and preserving trees (Exhibits F-9 and F-10). She then provided a brief staff report. Ms. Hamilton noted the applicant is requesting approval of the following: • A minor partition creating two parcels; • A Development Review permit for the construction of two zero-lot line dwellings in the Downtown Redevelopment Design District; • Design Variance to reduce portions of the side yard setbacks from seven feet to five feet on Parcel 1; • Design Variance to the interior side yard setback plane standard on Parcel 2; and • The removal of eight trees to construct the development. Ms. Hamilton provided an overview of the site, which is located at the corner of 4th and C, on the roundabout. It is in both the R-2 zone and within the Downtown Redevelopment Design District (DRDD). She shared photos of the site taken in August 2016. She pointed out the 50-inch Douglas fir at the southeast corner of the site that will be preserved and other trees that will be removed. She reviewed the proposed Partition and noted that there is no minimum lot size or lot dimensions in the R-2 zone. The variances requested are to the side yard setback plane requirement on Parcel 2 and to the side yard setback on Parcel 1; the required side yard setback is seven feet and the applicant is requesting a 2-foot variance, resulting in a five-foot setback. She reviewed the R-2 Dwelling Design standards, including: • Street Front Setback Plane, • Side Yard Setback Plane, • Side Yard Appearance and Screening, • Long Wall Planes, and • Garage Appearance and Location. She noted that after the partition the lots would be considered narrow lots. She noted the proposed two-parcel partition and zero lot line dwellings comply with all dimensional standards of the zone, with the exception of the side yard setback on Parcel 1 and the side yard setback plane on Parcel 2, for which the applicant is requesting design variances. Ms. Hamilton reviewed the DRDD standards that apply to residential development, including: • Building Siting and Massing, • Building Design, • Lake Oswego Style, • Materials, and • Site Design/Brick Paving. She noted these required standards were met by the proposed development. APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 15, 2016 Page 3 of 9 Ms. Hamilton then touched on the Lake Oswego Style, which defines three styles that are allowed in the DRDD. She noted the applicant’s proposed development meets the Arts and Crafts style, and reviewed the required elements: • Steeply pitched roofs, • Asymmetrical composition, • Multi-paned windows, segmented and round arch for accent, and • Stucco, shingle, brick and/or horizontal siding in combination. She showed the building elevations and reviewed how each of the standards has been met. She noted the area of the proposed variance to reduce portions of the side yard setback on the north elevation, and on the south elevation noted the area of the proposed variance to the side yard setback plane standard. She shared the proposed garage elevation. Ms. Hamilton reviewed the criteria for approval for a Design Variance, as follows: • Compliance with the applicable standard is not practicable due to the physical characteristics of the site, or • An alternative design will better accomplish the purposes, goals, or objectives of the base district and any adopted plan or overlay district applicable to the property; and • The proposed variance will result in a project that is exceptional in the quality of detailing, appearance and materials or creates a positive unique relationship to other nearby structures, views or open space. She pointed out that the staff report goes into detail on how these criteria are met. She noted the proposed side yard setback reduction is for a 12 to 15-foot area over a 60-foot width. She added the proposed design accomplishes the DRDD design standard that requires new buildings to use the siting and massing characteristics of the Lake Oswego Style such as complex massing and asymmetrical composition. She pointed out increased fenestration and additional windows that would create more transparency. She added that adjacent area is unimproved right-of-way, which adds to a perceived setback of 14 feet. Regarding the side yard setback plane, Ms. Hamilton stated, as the applicant had noted, that there is a conflict between the side yard setback plane and the DRDD standard requiring two-story development. She pointed out that the impact area is reduced by the complex massing, projections and recessions, and material changes, as shown on the south elevation, resulting in quality design. Lastly Ms. Hamilton addressed the proposed tree removal. She shared a site plan and noted there are 13 trees on or abutting the site. The applicant is requesting to remove eight trees in the area of development. She added that one of the letters received expressed concerns regarding tree removal. She pointed out the three trees proposed for removal, Bigleaf maples of 23”, 28” and 31” DBH, and noted that because of their stature and visibility their removal would have a significant negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. She continued that removal may be allowed as discussed in detail in the staff report. She noted that Exhibits F-9 and F-10 included information from the City’s contract Arborist, who recommended a tree protection zone of half the diameter of each tree in feet, e.g. a 15-foot tree protection zone for the 30” tree. This information was then used to determine if lot coverage standards could be met for the proposed development without removing the trees. Ms. Hamilton stated that staff recommends approval of LU 15-0074 subject to the conditions identified in the August 5, 2016 staff report. APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 15, 2016 Page 4 of 9 Questions of Staff In response to a question regarding the special street setback on C Avenue and the applicant’s proposal, Ms. Hamilton clarified that in this case the special street setback line matches the property line so the required setback is measured from the property line. Ms. Hamilton further clarified that the proposed bay windows on the first and second floors of the development would encroach two feet into the setback. In response to a question regarding the front setback plane, Ms. Hamilton confirmed that if the Commission grants a variance to the side yard setback all measurements would be related to the resulting five-foot setback. Vice Chair Poulson observed that while it is noted in the staff report where private utilities would be installed, there was no mention of the requirement or location for public utility easements. He also noted that the intersection is a traffic circle, not a roundabout, which is more dynamic. Ms. Hamilton replied she was not aware of any plans to change the traffic circle into a roundabout at that intersection. In response to a question regarding proposed brick accents, Ms. Hamilton clarified that brick accents are proposed along the edges of the ADA ramps, as required by the DRDD standards, and that this requirement is addressed in the Conditions of Approval. Vice Chair Poulson expressed concerns about the drywells in the locations proposed and mentioned that a new storm sewer line had been recently placed in the alley and wondered if the applicant could extend it and get some sort of SDC waiver or refund. Ms. Hamilton noted there is typically a zone of benefit but could not comment specifically on this project. In response to a question if one of the proposed patios extended all the way to the property line, Ms. Hamilton confirmed that as shown on the site plan in Exhibit E-6 it did not but that Exhibit E-9 showed the patio as being closer to the property line. She agreed there was an inconsistency in the plans and that the patio needed to be three feet from the property line. Vice Chair Poulson expressed concern that if the patio extended to the property line there would not be space for the drainage swale that was needed on that side of the proposed development. In response to a question, Ms. Hamilton clarified that while the garages look to be attached, they are considered to be detached, as described in the staff report, since they are connected to the houses via a breezeway. She then clarified that the mechanical equipment was shown on earlier plans and was found to meet the setback and screening standards, with its inclusion on the final application materials a Condition of Approval. She provided additional information prepared by the City’s contract arborist in regard to the location of the proposed drywell near tree number 1 and how the tree would be protected. In regard to the trees, which staff noted the removal of would have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood, Mr. Smith pointed out that the second part of Criterion 3 was not discussed in the staff report. Ms. Hamilton clarified that staff has interpreted that development allowed in a zone includes maximum lot coverage. Mr. Boone clarified that Chapter 55 is not a land use code but it is applied when the City is looking at building permits in a ministerial fashion. Applicant Mercedes Smith and Brian Feeney, Project Manager, 3J Consulting, 5075 SW Griffith Dr., Suite 150, Beaverton, OR 97005, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the proposed development and application. She noted the proposed variances would create a better product. She noted it is Arts and Crafts style and exceeds the requirements of the Code and that they also propose to preserve the 50” Douglas fir, which shifted the proposed project. She pointed out the proposal includes garages accessed from the public alley on the backside of the project. Mr. Feeney introduced himself and noted he is an engineer and could address Commissioner’s questions regarding stormwater management. He noted there is not currently public stormwater APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 15, 2016 Page 5 of 9 infrastructure adjacent to the site so they were required to retain stormwater onsite to the maximum extent practicable. He noted the proposed development a few lots away is at a higher elevation so it would be a challenge to tie into public infrastructure that would be related to that development. He added that sidewalks and driveways on the site are proposed to use impervious materials to reduce run-off on the site and that any overflow would drain to 4th Street. He noted they worked with project staff, a geotechnical engineer, and an arborist to design and place the drywell in relation to the Douglas fir tree and building foundation. He noted the arborist’s requirement to be onsite when the drywell is installed. He added they had worked closely with City staff to reduce the number of variances down to the ones being requested. He concluded they have reviewed the staff report and accept all of the Conditions of Approval. Questions of Applicant Mr. Rabbino asked for clarification about where on 4th Street stormwater overflow would connect into the City stormwater system, to which Mr. Feeney confirmed it would flow to a City stormwater catch basin one block away and then into the City stormwater system. He clarified this flow was away from the traffic circle. Mr. Prichard asked about basement footing drains, which Mr. Feeney confirmed would flow into the drywell, which is proposed to be 12 feet deep, and would have check valves to keep any overflow from coming back in. Vice Chair Poulson expressed appreciation for retaining stormwater on the site, but noted that an extension of a stormwater pipe would be only about 250 feet. He expressed concern about the development as proposed just meeting the required infiltration rate, which is a low rate. Mr. Feeney confirmed they are meeting the City Code and acknowledged the infiltration rate is low so they designed additional measures to deal with overflow if needed, and that it could be an undue burden to extend the stormwater line to this property and that City Engineering staff did not make this a requirement. Mr. Feeney noted that they would conduct additional infiltration tests at deeper levels, and that the drywell as proposed is deeper than the geotechnical report recommended. Vice Chair Poulson expressed concern that in the case of reduced infiltration after multiple rain events and potential clogging, overflow could end up in the street, and that the 12-foot depth of the proposed drywell so close to the building could cause problems in the future if it had to be dug up. Mr. Feeney noted that the proposed onsite stormwater system would also include sumped catch basins to catch and filter out tree debris prior to discharging into the drywell. He added that drywell excavation could be done in the future if needed with structural engineering support and shoring. Regarding the bay window extensions into the setback on the north side, Ms. Smith confirmed that bay windows are associated with a great room on the first floor and the master bedroom on the second floor. She added that the inclusion of bay windows was to meet the DRDD standards to provide variation and fenestration of the building façade. Discussion followed regarding other projections into the setbacks and which ones were allowed outright versus part of the requested variance, including front porch supports and side patios and roof supports. It was noted that the drawing included in Exhibit E-4 of the side patio was not accurate and that a swale would continue in that area. Ms. Hamilton pointed out that patios require a 3-foot setback from the property line, which would be checked at the building permit application stage. Ms. Smith replied they would be willing to accept making the needed correction to the patio as a Condition of Approval. Regarding stormwater, Mr. Feeney suggested they would accept an additional Condition of Approval to either proceed with the proposed stormwater system as designed or extend the public stormwater in the alley subject to the City Engineer’s review and approval. He added they had not had time to review this and would like to see if it’s feasible and acceptable to the City Engineer. Mr. Poulson suggested that even if it was not feasible to extend the stormwater line in the alley that they consider other options that drain to the street so as to not need to install the two proposed drywells. APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 15, 2016 Page 6 of 9 Public Testimony Proponents None Opponents None Neither for nor Against Jesse Santamaria, 578 & 584 4th St., Lake Oswego, OR, 97034, stated he represents two properties that are located south of the proposed development. He expressed concern that when this property is developed that the contractors follow locate lines so he is not impacted like he was by other adjacent development when a gas line had to be repaired. He also expressed concern that items in his home were damaged when the property on the other side of him was developed and the soils were compacted. He shared concern that his privacy would be impacted with views from the proposed development’s second floors into his courtyards, that the current vegetation proposed for removal provides a nice screen, and wondered what the plan was to replace that vegetation. He added that every year they deal with stormwater runoff from the alley and that redevelopment of the site as proposed could impact his property, and has seen up to three or four inches of standing water up against his west wall due a past change in the grade of the alley way. He added he would prefer that all of the water would flow to the street rather than retained on site with drywells. Rebuttal Ms. Smith acknowledged they heard and would work to address Mr. Santamaria’s concerns about utility line locates and construction and compaction. Regarding privacy, Ms. Smith noted they provided a landscaping plan, which shows landscaping along that boundary between the two properties. Regarding 2-story development and loss of privacy, she noted that two stories are required in that zone. As far as the rain and water runoff, she noted the proposal as designed meets City standards. She added that if the stormwater line were extended in the alley, other properties would be able to connect to it as part of the Zone of Benefit. Questions of Applicant It was suggested that a weekly construction schedule be provided to neighbor to the south, which Ms. Smith agreed could be accommodated. Regarding the landscaping plan, Mr. Prichard noted the patios are not shown and that additional privacy landscaping should be provided around the patios. Ms. Smith responded that they would include plantings in the required 3-foot setback and would submit a new landscaping plan showing the patios with buffer plantings. Deliberations No one present asked for more time to submit additional written evidence or testimony. The applicant stated they would not be submitting an amended application but would accept additional Conditions of Approval related to providing landscaping adjacent to the patio and would submit a revised planting plan. Mr. Boone noted that providing a construction schedule is not a land use matter so it would be by agreement between the applicant and the neighbor. Mr. Boone clarified in regard to buffer landscaping that the Commission can only add Conditions of Approval if it finds there is something necessary to meet the criteria of the Code. He added that the criteria are under the DRDD, which he reviewed briefly for the Commission, which does not appear to require screening between the two properties as they are similar use. The applicant stated for the record that they would provide a hedged buffer between the patio and the property to the south. The APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 15, 2016 Page 7 of 9 applicant waived their right to additional time to submit a final written argument. Vice Chair Poulson opened deliberations. Mr. Prichard suggested that the variances being requested are not the minimum required due to the proposed ceiling heights and could be modified to reduce the side yard setback plane variance. He suggested that the height could be reduced to nine feet on the first floor and eight feet on the second floor without impacting the interior space. He added this change would create less of an imposition to the property to the south. Mr. Rabbino responded that no evidence had been presented to support Mr. Prichard’s claim and that he was unsure of the overall benefit of reducing the ceiling height. Mr. Boone clarified that this was not a hardship variance but rather a variance to the design standards in the DDRD, which the application has been shown to have met. Mr. Prichard noted that there is nothing related to ceiling height in the variance criteria and he opined that by reducing the ceiling height he did not feel the development’s exterior appearance would be impacted. Ms. Melendez supported Mr. Prichard’s concerns but added that she felt that a variance would still be needed even if the ceiling heights were reduced. She added that she felt for the impacted neighbor but that one of the goals of the DRDD zone is to increase density. Ms. Melendez suggested that lowering the ceiling height would help reduce the impact and that if eight feet would not work on the second level they could vault the ceiling. Mr. Smith expressed concern about the addition of the bay windows to solely meet design standards. Mr. Rabbino countered that the bay windows would be allowed to encroach into the setback regardless of the requested variances. Ms. Melendez opined that she felt the variance request to reduce the side yard setback to five feet did not negatively impact the neighborhood and that it was a balance to create a varied façade. Mr. Prichard agreed and added that his main concern is related to the south property line and the setback plane variance. Mr. Shearer suggested he liked the overall project as proposed and did not feel reducing the ceiling height would make a big difference. Vice Chair Poulson brought up the written testimony (G-201) from Richard Braun regarding tree removal. He noted that the lot sizes and layout as proposed seemed to trump tree preservation and that other alternatives were not proposed or shared for the Commission’s review. Mr. Smith expressed frustration with the tree code and the current interpretation that seems to allow tree removal for new development but makes it very hard for trees to be removed in the absence of development. Ms. Melendez referred to Exhibit E-15, which shows that the there is significant impact to the ability to develop the property if the trees were to remain. Mr. Rabbino noted there is a balancing act required to allow development when trees are present. The Commissioners discussed that the terms significance and impactful are ambiguous. Mr. Boone noted that staff interprets the Code based on City Council legislative history and intent in relation to exploring reasonable alternatives to reduce the need for tree removal and development rights. Discussion followed. Mr. Prichard noted that the arborist’s report showed the trees proposed for removal are not healthy and that he visited the site after receiving the letter of concern (G-201); he added that by keeping the Douglas fir tree the applicant has already reduced the developable portion of the site. Vice Chair Poulson opined that although the proposed development meets the stormwater standards, he felt this site warrants additional consideration and that putting in the drywells is not the right direction. Mr. Prichard moved to approve the application LU 15-0074 as conditioned by staff, with two additional conditions: 1) reduce each of the floor to ceiling heights on the south side by one foot to minimize the variance on the south side; and 2) amend Exhibit E-4 showing the revised patio location to meet the required three-foot setback. Ms. Melendez seconded the motion. APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 15, 2016 Page 8 of 9 Mr. Boone asked the applicant if they had any questions out the proposed additional conditions. Andrew Tull, 3J Consulting, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated they had no issues addressing the second additional condition related to the patio and setbacks. Regarding the proposed first condition of approval related to ceiling height, Mr. Tull responded that they had worked the design very carefully to meet the DRDD requirements and that they included additional floor height in recognition of the high level design quality of the proposed development. He added that if the ceiling height were to be changed they would need to review the overall proposal to ensure that all criteria were still met. He noted that some of the current adjacent development is within the required setback and if redeveloped would need to meet the wider setback. Gregg Creighton, architect, added that 13 windows would disappear with the proposed height restriction, including 11 windows on the south side alone. He referred to pages A-2 and A-1 of the architectural drawings and reviewed which windows would have to be removed, including transom windows on the ground floor and windows on the second floor above a bathroom vanity, among others; on the east side the transoms above the entry would go away. Mr. Prichard agreed that the transom windows could be impacted, and added that he is concerned about the additional mass in the side yard setback plane and suggested that if the neighboring property to the south were to redevelop and request a similar side yard setback plane variance the impacts would be cumulative. Mr. Creighton asked if the Commission would be open to keeping the 10-foot height on the main floor if they went down to eight feet on the second floor. The motion was not passed (3:3). Mr. Rabbino moved to approve the application LU 15-0074 as conditioned by staff, with one additional condition to amend Exhibit E-4 showing the revised patio location to meet the required three-foot setback from the property line. Ms. Shearer seconded the motion. The motion was not passed (3:3). Vice Chair Poulson opined that they do not know if the property to the south will ever redevelop so it should not be part of their consideration. Mr. Smith responded that he believes strongly that having setbacks and the massing as proposed would be too much. Ms. Melendez suggested that in her opinion losing the transom windows was not a huge loss as other windows could be increased in height and a skylight could be added in the master bathroom. She added that when someone requests a variance they should get as close as they can to the standard and that a nine- foot first floor ceiling height would still be in keeping with the quality of the home. Commissioners discussed the impact of reducing the ceiling height in terms of reducing the non-compliance from the side yard setback plane standard. Ms. Hamilton referred to drawings showing the west and south elevations and the building profiles in relation to the side yard setback plane and the roof height and projections into the setback plane. She added that by dropping the roof height there likely would still be roof form projections into the setback plane but perhaps not wall forms as currently proposed. Ms. Melendez shared that she is supportive of the requested side yard setback plane variance in general but not to the degree proposed. Discussion regarding the transom windows followed. Mr. Prichard noted that while they might like the design their role was to determine if the proposal met the Code, not to conduct design review. Vice Chair Poulson suggested the Commission could reject the proposal and allow the applicant to come back with an updated proposal. Mr. Prichard moved to deny the application LU 15-0074 as submitted. Ms. Melendez seconded the motion. The motion was not passed (3:3). When asked, Mr. Boone suggested that the Commission could vote to continue the hearing to a date when all seven members of the Commission would be present. Discussion followed. Ms. APPROVED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 15, 2016 Page 9 of 9 Melendez suggested imposing a more general condition to lower the height of the building by two feet on the south side, allowing the applicant to address the Commission’s concerns as they see fit. Mr. Shearer expressed concern about imposing a condition without the Commission’s ability to review the updated proposal. Mr. Rabbino moved to continue the hearing on LU 15-0074 to a date when all seven members of the Commission are present. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed (6:0). The hearing was continued to Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 7 p.m. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Poulson adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader /s/ Janice Bader Administrative Support