Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2014-01-15 (04)TO: Development Review Commission FROM: Jessica Numanoglu, Senior Planner Planning and Building Services SUBJECT: LU 13-0025, Appeal of Staff Decision on a Residential Infill Design application DATE: January 3, 2013 ACTION Hold a public hearing and issue a tentative decision on LU 13-0025. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is requesting Residential Infill Design (RID) Review approval for the following exceptions to R-7.5 dimensional standards in order to construct additions to the existing single- family dwelling and to raise the roof of the existing detached carport: • Decrease the side yard setback for the detached carport from 10 feet to zero; • Decrease the rear yard setback for the dwelling from 30 feet to 9'-9"; • Decrease the Oswego Lake setback for the dwelling from 25 feet to 9'-9"; • Decrease the combined 15 -foot side yard setback for the dwelling to 11'-10"; and, • Increase in the maximum lot coverage from 25% to 47.8%. The site is located at 1227 Lake Front Road, Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map 2 1E 10CA. FINAL STAFF DECISION / REQUEST FOR HEARING AND APPEAL On November 27, 2013, staff approved the applicant's request for RID Review approval as described above, subject to the conditions of approval on pages 3-5 of this report. On December 11, 2013, Ralph Tahran filed a request for public hearing on behalf of Ellen (Ede) Schmidt and Tom Weber, neighbors of the subject property, in opposition to the application (Exhibit Al). 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 of 6 FINDINGS Background Per LOC 50,07.003.3.d and LOC 50.07.003.14.d.iii(2), the RID review procedure is as follows: • Staff makes a preliminary decision on the RID application and sends written notice of the preliminary decision to property owners within 300 feet of the site, the neighborhood association in which the property is located and all adjacent neighborhood associations. Comments on the preliminary decision are due within 14 days of the notice date. • If comments are received during the 14 -day notice period, then staff makes a final decision on the application, taking into consideration the comments that were received. Notice of the final decision is mailed to anyone that commented on the application and the surrounding property owners and neighborhood associations described above. The final staff decision may be appealed within 15 days of the date of notice of final decision. The City sent written notice of the preliminary staff decision (Exhibit D1) on this RID Review application on August 2, 2013. During the notice period for the preliminary decision, four comments were received (Exhibits G200 -G202). Following receipt of these comments, the applicant elected to re -open the proceeding by submission of additional materials on September 23, 2013, effectively withdrawing the prior preliminary decision upon the original application. A second preliminary decision (Exhibit D2) based upon the applicant's revised application was mailed on October 25, 2013. Four comments were received during the notice period for the second preliminary decision (Exhibits G101 -G102 and G204 -G205). The final staff decision (Exhibit D3) was mailed on November 27, 2013. The neighbors, Ellen (Ede) Schmidt and Tom Weber (appellents) filed an appeal and request for a hearing in opposition to the application on December 11, 2013 (Exhibit Al), Compliance with Applicable Review Criteria The written request for a hearing filed by the appellants does not specify the reasons for the appeal (Exhibit Al); however, the appellants submitted written comments in opposition to the application during the first and second preliminary decisions on the application (Exhibits G201, G202, G204 and G205). The issues raised in these letters by the appellants along with all the applicable approval criteria are discussed in the preliminary and final staff decisions in Exhibits D1 -D3. CONCLUSION Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that LU 13-0025 complies with all applicable criteria and standards or can be made to comply through the imposition of conditions. Page 3 of 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of LU 13-0025, subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permits, the ApplieantlOwner shall: Submit final building plans for review and approval of staff that are the same or substantially similar to the site plan, floor plans, and building elevations illustrated on Exhibits E13 through E16. 2. Submit a boundary survey that is stamped and signed by a registered professional surveyor showing all existing encroachments on the same document, including the location of the west wall of the carport in greater detail. If the survey finds that the wall extends over the property line, the carport shall be shifted to the extent necessary to assure that all portions of the carport are on the applicant's property. 3. Submit approval from the Oswego Lake Corporation authorizing drainage from the proposed additions to be directed to the Oswego Lake. If any onsite infiltration will be proposed, submit a design for the facility to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. A certified arborist shall be required to review the construction plans and prepare a report prescribing appropriate measures to assure the protection of the Japanese Maple and fir tree on the abutting lot to the west during construction. The report shall be submitted with the tree protection application (see item 2 under Code Requirements, below). The arborist shall also be required to be on site during all excavation activities within the driplines of both trees. 5. Submit a Notice of Development Restriction containing the following restriction listed, below, for review and approval of City staff. [Note: staff can provide a template for the notice of development restriction by request.] The dwelling and detached carport on the site received exceptions to the side, rear and Oswego Lake setbacks and lot coverage requirements of R-7.5 zone through the Residential Infill Design Review process and were specifically approved for their design. No external additions or alterations of these structures (including changes to or removal of approved building design features or materials) shall be permitted, including changes during construction, without prior written approval by the City of Lake Oswego, per City of Lake Oswego Planning File No. LU 13-0025. 6. Record the approved Notice of Development Restriction as described in Condition A(5), above, with the Clackamas County Clerk's Office and submit a copy of the recorded document to the City. Page 4 of 6 B. Prior to the Final Building Inspection, the Applicant/Owner shall: 1. Request a final inspection by the Planning staff to assure that the development complies with the approved final plans, per Conditions A(1) and A(2), above. Code Requirements: 1. Expiration of Development Permit: Per LOC 50.07.003.17, the RID approved by this decision shall expire three years following the effective date of this approval, and can be extended by the City Manager pursuant to the provisions of this section. 2. Tree Protection: Submit a tree protection plan and application in accordance with the arborist recommendations (if required) per LOC 55.08.020 and 55.08.030 for review and approval by staff, including off-site trees that are within the construction zone. The plan shall include: The location of temporary tree protection fencing, consisting of a minimum 6 -foot high cyclone fence secured by steel posts around the tree protection zone, or as recommended by the project arborist and approved by the City. b. A note stating that no fill or compaction shall occur within the critical root zones of any of the trees, or that if fill or compaction is unavoidable, measures will be taken as recommended by a certified arborist to reduce or mitigate the impact of the fill or compaction. The note shall also inform contractors that the project arborist shall be on site and oversee all construction activities within the tree protection zone. c. A note that clearly informs all site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone. The applicant and contractor(s) shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. A sign shall be attached to the tree protection fencing which states that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior written approval has been obtained from the City Manager and project arborist. Note: Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services Department are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, and related code provisions. The applicants are advised to review plans for compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations that could relate to the development, i.e., Americans with Disabilities Act, Endangered Species Act. Staff may advise the applicants of issues regarding state and Page 5 of 6 federal laws that staff member believes would be helpful to the applicants, but any such advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or state law or regulation. EXHIBITS A. NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL Al. Letter of intent to appeal the final staff decision submitted by Ralph Tahran on behalf of Ellen (Ede) Schmidt and Tom Weber, dated December 11, 2013. B -C. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. STAFF REPORTS D1. Staff Report (Preliminary Staff Decision), dated August 2, 2013 D2, Staff Report (2"d Preliminary Staff Decision), dated October 24, 2013 D3. Staff Report (Final Staff Decision), dated November 27, 2013 E. GRAPHICS/PLANS E1. Tax Map E2. Site Survey E3. Site Plan (proposed) E4. Building Elevations (proposed) E5. Floor Plans (proposed) E6. Roof Plan (proposed) E7. Site Plan (existing) E8. Building Elevations (existing) E9. Floor Plans (existing) E10. Roof Plan (existing) E11. Aerial Photograph E12. Photographs of Homes within 200 feet of the Site E13. Revised Site Plan (proposed) E14. Revised Building Elevations (proposed) E15. Revised Floor Plans (proposed) E16. Revised Roof Plan (proposed) E17. Revised Site Plan (existing) E18. Revised Building Elevations (existing) E19. Revised Floor Plans (existing) E20. Revised Roof Plan (existing) E21. Boundary Survey, received October 30, 2013 Page 6 of 6 E22. Detail Sketch of the West Carport Wall, received November 6, 2013 E23. Site plans from Building Division Files and Aerial Photographs Showing the Development at 1135, 1159, 1207, 1217 and 1307 Lake Front Road F. WRITTEN MATERIALS F1. Applicant's Narrative F2. Fire Marshal's Memorandum F3. Revised Narrative, received September 23, 2013 G. LETTERS Neither for nor Against (G1-99) None Support (G100-199) G100. Letter from Gerd and Ruth Hoeren, dated August 12, 2013 G101. Email from Jim & Heather Amey, dated October 29, 2013 G102. Letter from Ruth Hoeren, dated October 31, 2013 Opposition (G200+) G200. Letter from Douglas Reiter, dated August 9, 2013 G201. Letter from Ellen (Ede) Schmidt, dated August 11, 2013 G202. Letter with attachments from Ralph Tahran, dated August 14, 2013 G203. Email from Douglas Reiter, dated October 18, 2013 G204. Email from Ede Schmidt, dated November 7, 2013 G205. Letter from Ralph Tahran, dated November 8, 2013 Date of Application Submittal: May 23, 2013 Date Application Determined to be Complete: July 9, 2013 State Mandated 120 -Day Rule: February 22, 20141 1 The 120 -day deadline was extended by the applicant. December 11, 2013 City Recorder City of Dake Oswego P.O. Box 359 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Re: Request for appeal of W 13-0025 Decision 'FAY A E OSWEGO Dear City Recorder, On behalf of my clients, Ellen (Ede) Schmidt and Tom Weber, neighbors of 1227 Lake Front Road, I would like to request a hearing'to appeal the Final Decision of case file: LU 13-0025, which was issued November 27, 2013. We request that a hearing be held by the Development Review Commission to review the decision. included with this letter is the required appeal fee of $551.00. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 503-539-8802. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely Ralph . Ta a , Architect 2333 5W Stephenson,Street Portland, Oregon 97219 Ellen (Ede) Schmidt 1237 Lake Front Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 TAHRAN ARCHITECTURE PLANNING LLC 2333 SUV STEPHENSON ST,,PORTLAND,OR.97219 EXHIBIT A-1 LU 13-0025 111 APPLICANT/OWNER: Sally Caplan TAX LOT REFERENCE. Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map 2 1E 10CA I nr,A-nnn1- 1227 Lake Front Road COMP. PLAN DESCRIPTION: R-7.5 ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7.5 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST FILE NO: LU 13-0025 STAFF: Jessica Numanoglu DATE OF REPORT: August 2, 2013 120 -DAY DECISION DATE: November G, 2013 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: McVey -South Shore The applicant is requesting Residential Infill Design (RID) Review approval for the following exceptions to R-7.5 dimensional standards in order to construct additions to the existing single-family dwelling and to raise the roof of the existing detached carport: • Decrease the side yard setback for the detached carport from 10 feet to zero; • Decrease the rear yard setback for the dwelling from 30 feet to 9'-9"; • Decrease the Oswego Lake setback for the dwelling from 25 feet to 9'-9"; • Decrease the combined 15 -foot side yard setback for the dwelling to 11'-10"; and, • Increase in the maximum lot coverage from 25% to 47.8%. II. PRELIMINARY DECISION Approval of LU 13-0025 with conditions. The complete listing of conditions is provided on pages 13-14 of this report. EXHIBIT D-1 LU 13-0025 9 a/ Page 1 of 16 1 III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 0 City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code [LOC Chapter 50]: LOC 50.01.006 LOC 50.04.001.1 LOC 50.04.003.7 LOC 50.05.011 LOC 50.06.001.2 LOC 50.06.001.4 LOC 50.06.002 LOC 50.06,003.2 LOC 50.06.006.3; 50.07.004.1 LOC 50.06.007.2.0 LOC 50.07.003.1.b LOC 50.07.003.5 LOC 50.07.003.14 LOC 50.07.003.7.b LOC 50.07.003.6 LOC 50.01.003.2.d LOC 50.07.003.10 LOC 50.08.007 Nonconforming Uses and Structures Residential Low Density Zones Dimensional Standards Oswego Lake Setback Flood Management Area Structure Design -Residential Zones Garage Appearance and Location Parking On-site Circulation — Driveways and Fire Access Roads Drainage Standard for Minor Development Maximum Shade Point Height Standard Burden of Proof Conditions of Approval Review of Minor Development Applications Appeal of Minor Development Decision Effect of Decision Interpretation of Approvals Certificate of Occupancy Residential Infill Design Review Standards City of Lake Oswego Tree Code [LOC Chapter 55]: LOC 55.08.020 LOC 55.08.030 IV. FINDINGS A. Background/ E_xisting Conditions: 1. The property is 5,227 square feet in size and is located on the north side of Lake Front Road, a local street (Exhibit E1). 2. The site is zoned R- 7.5 and is developed with a single family dwelling and detached carport Tree Protection Plan Required Tree Protection Measures Required LU 13-0025 2 Page 2 of 16 (Exhibit E2). Surrounding properties to the south, east and west are also zoned R-7.5 and are developed with single-family residences. The site abuts Oswego Lake on the north side. 3. The existing single-family dwelling and detached carport on the site are nonconforming to many of the R-7.5 zone dimensional standards, including front, side and rear setbacks and lot coverage (Exhibit E2). 4. The site slopes steeply down towards the lake (Exhibit E2). There are no trees that are five inches in diameter or greater on the site; however, there is a deciduous tree and a fir tree on the abutting lot to the west that are in close proximity to the west property line. V. REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES A. Public Notice to Surrounding Area: Pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.3.d, the City will send written notice of the preliminary decision of a RID Review application to the neighborhood association, all adjacent neighborhood associations, and all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. If no written comments are received during the 14 -day comment period, then the decision becomes final. If written comments are received within the comment period, a final decision shall be made upon consideration of the comments and a notice of final decision shall be provided [LOC 50.07.003.14.d.iii]. Burden of Proof: Per LOC 50.07.003.1.b, the applicant for a development permit shall bear the burden of proof that the application complies with all applicable review criteria or can be made to comply with applicable criteria by imposition of conditions of approval_ The applicant has provided sufficient evidence to enable staff to evaluate the proposal. These documents are listed as exhibits at the end this report. C. Classification of Application LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(15) describes RID Review as a minor development. D. Criteria for Review of Application Per LOC 50.07.003.14.d.ii, for any minor development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal complies with: LU 13-0025 Page 3 of 16 3 1. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; Dimensional Standards LOC 50.04 Residential Low Density Zones [LOC 50.04.001.1] The site is zoned R-7.5. The applicant proposes to raise and reconstruct the roof of the existing carport in order to regrade the driveway, construct an addition on the rear of the dwelling to fill in an existing deck area on the lower floor, and construct a front entry addition (Exhibits E3 and E4). The existing dwelling and carport are non- conforming to several of the R-7.5 zone dimensional standards. Per LOC 50.01.006.1.c, a residential structure that is non -conforming may be enlarged or expanded in a manner that does not increase the degree of non -conformity. If approved, the portions of the dwelling that received RID exception(s) would be considered conforming; however, the existing non -conforming portions of the dwelling would still be subject to the non -conforming regulations. The setback, lot coverage, floor area, and height requirements in the R-7.5 zone are listed in the matrix, below. LOC 50.04.001.1 Current R-7.5 Zone Standards and Analysis of Compliance Standards Minimum Requirements Proposed Additions (dwelling) Carport Setbacks Front Yard 25 feet 40 feet 15'-511* Side Yards 5 feet min, total combined 15 feet 10 feet — accessory structure >18' 6'4.5" (west)** 5'-5.5" (east) 0 (west)** 30' (east) Rear Yard 30 feet — dwelling 15 feet — accessory structure 9'-9"feet** 68' Height 35 feet — dwelling (sloped lot) 24 feet — accessory structure 28 feet 19.5' Lot Coverage 25% 47.8%** Floor Area 3,491 s.f. 3,357 s.f_ *Per LOC 50.04.003.3.a, the front setback maybe reduced to the average of the front setback for an existing dwelling or detached garage on an abutting lot and the setback required by the zone. However, in no case can the front setback be reduced to less than 15 feet. As illustrated on Exhibit E3, the detached carport (garage) on the abutting lot to the west has a zero front yard setback; therefore, the front setback on the applicant's lot can be reduced to 15 feet. **RID exception requested. As illustrated on Exhibits E3 -E5 and summarized in the matrix, above, the proposed development complies with all of the site development limitations in the R-7.5 zone, except the side and rear yard setbacks and maximum lot coverage. The applicant is requesting a RID approval to reduce the rear and side yard setbacks and increase the lot coverage which is discussed under LOC 50.08, below. LU 13-0025 4 Page 4 of 16 Oswego Lake Setback [LOC 50.22.0301 This standard requires that, except for a boathouse and certain other listed buildings/structures, a building shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the property line of the parcels that constitute Oswego Lake. As illustrated on Exhibit E3, the applicant is requesting a RID exception to this standard to reduce the Oswego Lake setback from 25 to 9'-9" for an addition in the northwest corner of the dwelling, which is discussed under LOC 50.08, below. Adiustments. Alternatives, and Variances [LOC 50.08] Residential Infill Design Review Standards [LOC 50.08.007] These standards provide an alternative review process for construction or alteration of outright permitted residential dwellings and accessory structures in residential zones that do not meet the clear and objective development standards of the Code, but may be found to be otherwise compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding residential development. The City Manager may grant exceptions to the requirements of the underlying zone if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed design results in development that is equal to or better than development that would meet the clear and objective standards. In making this determination, the City Manager shall consider the dwelling or accessory structure size, relationship to the street, and relationship to the neighbors. In considering additions to existing structures, the analysis is not focused solely on the impact of the addition without looking at the resulting structure and whether that addition is equal or better than if it were placed in a manner that would conform to the clear and objective standards. The question for RID approval is whether the resulting structure (whether conforming or non- conforming) with the addition, is equal or better than development that would meet the clear and objective standards [LU 05-0056, Luhr], [LU 07-0042, Zmrhal]. When applying the RID criteria, the City Manager shall also consider the pattern and character of development of lots within 200 feet of the subject site and any neighborhood design objectives or guidelines for residential development that have been adopted by the local neighborhood association. The McVey -South Shore neighborhood association does not have an adopted neighborhood plan. The applicant has provided a photo inventory of dwellings within 200 feet of the site in order to demonstrate the pattern and character of development in the immediate neighborhood (Exhibits E11 and E12). The properties within 200 feet of the site abutting the lake contain larger -sized dwellings on smaller lots than those properties within 200 feet of the site that are on the south side of Lake Front Road. Additionally, the lots to the south sit at a higher elevation and most take access from roads on the upslope side of the property rather than Lake Front Road. The pattern and character of development on the lake -front properties are distinctly different than the pattern and character of the development on properties along the south LU 13-0025 Page 5 of 16 5 side of Lake Front Road. Although the lots to the south are required to be considered, the differences in the character of development between those properties and lots on the north side of Lake Front Road shall be taken into consideration and the lake -front lots shall be predominate in weighing the neighborhood compatibility. The applicant is requesting to reduce the side, rear, and Oswego Lake setbacks and increase the maximum 25% lot coverage in order to construct additions to the existing dwelling and to raise the roof of the existing detached carport. Following is a discussion of the RID criteria for the proposed exceptions. Residential Dwelling or Accessory Structure Size Refers to exceptions to Floor Area, Lot coverage, Yard setbacks, Building Height, and Accessory Structures An exception to the standards listed above may be permitted when a more positive relationship between the size of the dwelling and the scale and character of a neighborhood can be demonstrated in other ways. The degree to which the dwelling design offers features that diminish the perceived scale and improves the perceived character is determined by consideration of distance and visibility from the street and adjoining properties, topography, building number, form, mass and orientation, and landscaping. The pattern and character of development on lake -front properties consists of predominantly larger homes on smaller lots located close to the street and the adjacent dwellings (Exhibits E11 and E12). Many of the lake -front lots do not appear to meet the front and/or side yard setbacks and appear to exceed the maximum lot coverage prescribed by the zone. The development proposed by the applicant is consistent with this pattern and similar in scale and bulk to other dwellings and carports in the vicinity. The proposed additions to the dwelling at the entry on the south side and in the northeast corner and the modification to the existing carport roof do not significantly increase the perceived scale or size of these structures. The following locational factors and design features of the proposed development diminish the perceived scale and improve the perceived character of the structures: • The addition in the northeast corner consists of enclosing the lower floor of an existing covered deck, extending the existing covered deck above the addition to the north by three feet, and changing the roof form on the north end of the dwelling from a hipped to a gable end (Exhibits E3, E4 and E6). The modified roof form will be below the main roof ridgeline and the lower floor addition does not expand the existing building footprint. As a result, the overall bulk and scale of the 2 -story dwelling will remain largely the same as viewed from Oswego Lake and the neighbors to the east. • The extension of the covered deck by three feet into the rear and Oswego Lake setbacks does not significantly increase the bulk or size of the existing dwelling LU 13-0025 6 Page 6 of 16 because the deck is not enclosed and will utilize a cable railing system that further minimizes the small roof and deck extension. The entry addition on the south side of the dwelling meets all yard setback requirements and is below the main roof ridgeline (Exhibits E3 and E4). Because the existing entry to the dwelling sits approximately 10 feet below the level of Lake Front Road and is recessed, the existing entry has little or no relationship to the street. The proposed entry addition is relatively small and will not increase the perceived size of the dwelling from any elevation and will significantly improve the dwelling's relationship to the street by providing a more prominent entry feature. The carport on the lot to the west does not meet the side or front setback and garage on the property to the east does not meet the front setback (Exhibit E3). This pattern of setbacks for garages and carports is common for the lots on the north side of Lake Front Road (Exhibits E11 and E12). Additionally, the applicant proposes to maintain the existing footprint of the carport and is only proposing to raise the height of the roof. Because the existing carport roof sits lower in elevation than both of the carport and garages on the abutting properties (see picture, below) and the new roof will match the height of the carport abutting the site to the west, the increase in the roof height will be more consistent with the surrounding development. Staff finds that the requested exceptions to the rear, side, and Oswego Lake setbacks and lot coverage are consistent with the pattern of setbacks and lot coverage on other lake -front lots in the vicinity. Staff finds that the requested exceptions result in a more visually engaging fagade from the street that is more commensurate with the scale of development on abutting lots and does not add any significant mass or bulk as viewed from the other elevations. For these reasons, the resulting design creates a more compatible, positive relationship between the size of the proposed residential dwelling and the scale and character of the neighborhood. LU 13-0025 Page 7 of 16 7 Relationship to the Street Refers to exceptions to Front Yard Setback, Street Front Setback Plane, and Garage Appearance and Location This consideration — relationship to the street -- is not applicable to the consideration of an exception to side, rear and Oswego Lake setbacks or lot coverage requirements. Staff notes, however, that the proposed entry addition will result in a more prominent and inviting entry to the home that will improve the dwelling's relationship to the street (Exhibits E4 and E8). Relationship to the Neighbors Refers to exceptions to Side Yard Setback, Side Yard Setback Planes, Side Yard Appearance and Screening, and Long Wall Planes Infill that is compatible will not diminish the scale, character or privacy of neighboring houses and will avoid visual conflict with neighbors. The relationship between a proposed house and the neighboring dwellings is determined by evaluating distance and visibility from adjoining properties, preservation of existing landscape features perceived to be of value to adjacent properties, topography, perceived proportion relative to adjacent properties, perceived sight lines to and from windows and decks, treatment of elevations visible to adjacent properties, and landscaping and screening. Typically, a house design's relationship to the neighbors is addressed through the following standards: side yard setback; side yard elevation. An exception to the standards may be approved when a proposed design of a structure is equal or better than development that would meet the clear and objective zone requirements, because the proposed design demonstrates a more compatible, positive relationship to the scale, character and privacy of its neighbors. As illustrated on the aerial photograph of dwellings within 200' of the site (Exhibit E11), most of the lake -front dwellings in the vicinity have small or no side yard setbacks consistent with the side setbacks proposed by the applicant. The resulting development demonstrates a more compatible, positive relationship to the scale, character and privacy of its neighbors by utilizing the following design features and locational factors: • The character and privacy of the neighbors to the west are maintained because the addition will be within the existing footprint along the west side and does not encroach any further into the side setback than the existing dwelling. Additionally, because the applicant's dwelling is closer to the lake than the dwelling to the west, the area of the addition is approximately 16 feet forward of the nearest point of the dwelling to the west; therefore, there are no privacy conflicts (Exhibit E3). There is no impact from the side yard exception to the neighbor to the east because the addition is on the west side of the dwelling. • The addition in the northwest corner fills in the lower level of an existing second story covered deck. The existing covered deck will be extended three feet toward the rear property line, but will otherwise have the same relationship to LU 13-0025 8 Page 8 of 16 the neighbor to the west as currently exists. A cable railing will be utilized to maintain existing transparency of the second floor deck (Exhibit E4). The existing carport wall on the west property line will be reused and the existing footprint of the carport will not be changed; therefore, privacy to the neighbor to the west will not be affected by the side yard setback exception for the carport. The proposed roof of the carport is designed to slope away from the neighbors to the east and west and the peak of the roof will match the height of the carport on the abutting lot to the west, thereby maintaining an appropriate scale with that carport as well as the garage to the east, both of which are taller than the applicant's carport (Exhibit E4). Staff finds that the design features and locational factors, as discussed above, demonstrate a more compatible, positive relationship to the scale, character and privacy of its neighbors. Conclusion Staff finds that the resulting design is equal or better to a dwelling that could meet the setback and lot coverage standards and that the development is compatible with the neighborhood character in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, staff concludes that the additions and carport roof modification meet the requirements for the requested exceptions pursuant to the RID Review standards. Overlay and Design Districts [LOC 50.051 Flood Management Area [LOC 50.05.011] This standard applies to all development proposed within the "Flood Management Area", which includes lands within the 100 -year flood boundary as depicted on the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps created for the National Flood Insurance Program by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). According to the FEMA maps, the base flood elevation at this site is 99.7' (NGVD-29 Datum). The lowest floor of a habitable residential structure must be at least one foot above the base flood elevation. As illustrated on Exhibit E2, the dwelling is located entirely outside of the 100 -year flood boundary. This standard is met. 2. The applicable Development Standards [LOC 50.061; Structure Design — Residential Zones [LOC 50.06.001] The following design standards apply to the proposed development. LU 13-0025 Page 9 of 16 9 Street Front Setback Plane LOC 50.06.001.2.b The front profile of a structure is required to fit behind a plane that starts at the front setback line (front or side yard abutting a street) and extends upward to 20 feet in height, sloping towards the center of the lot at a 6:12 pitch up to the maximum allowed height. As illustrated on Exhibit E4, both the carport and the dwelling fit entirely behind the street front setback plane, thereby complying with this standard. Side Yard Setback Plane — Interior Yards LOC 50.06.001.2.e The side profile of a structure is required to fit behind a plane that starts at the side property lines and extends upward to 12 feet in height, sloping towards the center of the lot at a 12:12 pitch up to the maximum allowed height. Any individual roof form may penetrate the side yard setback plane if it is less than one-third the width of the structure at 12 ft. in height. Staff measured the side yard setback plane on both side yards for the dwelling and found that the additions fit behind both side yard setback planes (Exhibit E4). A portion of the west wall of the existing carport penetrates the side yard setback plane; however, this is an existing nonconforming condition and this wall will not be altered (Exhibits E3, E4 and E7). Approximately 22% of the raised carport roof penetrates the side yard setback plane at 12 feet in height at the north end of the carport in the area where the existing west wall is nonconforming to this standard (i.e., the roof area meeting the exception criteria does not increase the degree of nonconformity of the existing west wall). This standard is met. Side Yard Appearance and Screening LOC 50.06.001.2.f The development must comply with one of the side yard appearance and screening treatments: Maximum Side Yard Plane, Side Yard Features, or Screening. As shown on Exhibit E4, the additions comply with the Maximum Side Yard Plane treatment because the affected side yard plane on the west side is approximately 330 square feet, which is below the 750 square -foot maximum size for side yard planes. The side yard plane on the east side of the dwelling and the west side of the carport are not proposed to be altered by the proposed additions. The east side of the carport wall consists of a cable railing system that does not increase the side yard wall plane (Exhibit E4). This standard is met. Garage Appearance and Location FLOC 50.06,.001.41 Per LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iii, the garage location and appearance standards in LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iv do not apply because the lot is a "steeply sloped lot" as illustrated on Exhibit E2 (see definition of "Lot, Steeply Sloped" in LOC 50.10.003.2). 10 LU 13-0025 Page 10 of 16 Staff finds that the proposed development complies with all of the Residential Building Design requirements. Parking [LOC 50.06.002] This standard requires that a single-family dwelling provide one off-street parking space. This standard may be satisfied by garage parking for single-family residences. The required off-street parking is provided in the carport (Exhibit E3). This standard is met. On -Site Circulation - Driveways and Fire Access Roads [LOC 50.06.003.2] This standard is applicable to all development proposing a new use or an increased use on a site when the development will result in the construction of, or the increased use of private streets, driveways, or parking lot aisles. This standard regulates driveways, including width, slope, and other aspects of geometric design, particularly those related to emergency vehicle access. Driveways serving single- family dwellings shall not exceed 20 percent grade or five percent cross slope. The existing driveway is at an approximately 20% slope (Exhibit E2). The applicant proposes to add approximately two feet of fill to the carport landing and driveway in order to reduce the steepness of the driveway (Exhibit E4). The existing driveway approach will not be altered. According to the Fire Marshal (Exhibit F2), emergency vehicle access to the site is adequate. This standard is met. Drainage Standard for Minor Development [LOC 50.06.006.3.a.ii] This standard requires that drainage alterations, including new development, not adversely affect neighboring properties. The applicant's narrative (Exhibit F1) states that runoff from the additions will be directed to gutters and downspouts that will daylight into the front and rear yards. The Engineering staff notes that the yards do not appear to be large enough to accommodate drainage on site and that it is likely that the existing dwelling drains to the lake. If that is the case, the proposed additions would need to tie into the existing drainage system. When a development proposal increases the amount of drainage onto abutting property, the abutting property owner must consent or the applicant must demonstrate a right to increase the discharge on the abutting property, and the applicant must show that any increase in drainage on the abutting property does not adversely affect other property or the public stormwater system. The abutting property is Oswego Lake. The lake is not part of the City's stormwater system; the lake is managed by the Lake Corporation. The applicant will be required to submit approval from the Lake Corporation to direct drainage from the additions to the LU 13-0025 Page 11 of 16 11 lake. if discharged into the lake, the new runoff would negligibly increase the amount of lake flow into the Willamette River, without impact on other lake -front properties. Alternatively, if a subsurface infiltration facility is proposed, the Building Division requires such facilities to be engineered with a site specific infiltration test. Compliance with this standard will be reviewed at the time of building permit application. Solar Access [LOC 50.06.0071 Maximum Shade Point Height Standard [LOC 50.06.007.2.c] All single-family structures in any zone are required to meet the Maximum Shade Point Height Standard [LOC 50.06.007.2.c], which protects structures located to the north of the site from shading. The proposed development is exempt from this standard pursuant to LOC 50.04.004.3.4, because the property to the north is an undevelopable area (Oswego Lake); therefore, there is an insignificant benefit of complying with this standard. 3. Any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application; City of Lake Oswego Tree Code [LOC Chapter 55] Tree Removal A tree removal permit is required for removal of any trees five inches in diameter or greater. The applicant is not proposing to remove any trees with this application. Tree Protection The Code requires tree protection measures [LOC 55.08.030(1)]. The protective fencing shall be placed at the tree protection zone, which is the zone required to protect the critical root area necessary for the continued health of the trees. As required by LOC 55.08.030(7), no construction, excavation, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless directed by an arborist present on site and approved by the City. There is a deciduous tree and a large fir on the abutting property to the west that could be impacted by construction of the proposed development. Tree protection measures may be required and an arborist report outlining pre- and post - construction recommendations for preservation of these trees will be required if construction activities are proposed within the driplines of these trees. LU 13-0025 12 Page 12 of 16 As required by LOC 55.08.02 and 55.08.030, a tree protection plan in accordance with the arborist's recommendations (if applicable) shall be submitted with the building permit plans for staff review and approval. Tree protection measures must be installed prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Tree protection fencing consists of 6 -foot high chain link fencing supported by 6 -foot high metal posts, placed a maximum often feet apart. A note should be placed on the construction documents that informs the site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to these trees, including bark and root zone, and that no materials should be stored or compaction occur within the root zones of the adjacent trees [LOC 55.08.030]. The contractor shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. 4. Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. There are no outstanding conditions of approval that affect the subject property. VI. CONCLUSION Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that LU 13-0025 complies with all applicable criteria and standards or can be made to comply through the imposition of conditions. VII. ACTION TAKEN Approval of LU 13-0025, subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permits, the Applicant/Owner shalt: 1. Submit final building plans for review and approval of staff that are the same or substantially similar to the site plan, floor plans, and building elevations illustrated on Exhibits E3 through E6. 2. Submit approval from the Lake Corporation authorizing drainage from the proposed additions to be directed to the lake. If any onsite infiltration will be proposed, submit a design for the facility to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3. Submit a Notice of Development Restriction containing the following restriction listed, below, for review and approval of City staff. [Note: staff can provide a template for the notice of development restriction by request.] The dwelling and detached carport on the site received exceptions to the side, rear and Oswego Lake setbacks and lot coverage requirements of R-7.5 zone through the Residential Infill Design Review process and were specifically approved for their LU 13-0025 13 Page 13 of 16 design. No external additions or alterations of these structures (including changes to or removal of approved building design features or materials) shall be permitted, including changes during construction, without prior written approval by the City of Lake Oswego, per City of Lake Oswego Planning File No. LU 13-0025. 4. Record the approved Notice of Development Restriction as described in Condition A(3), above, with the Clackamas County Clerk's Office and submit a copy of the recorded document to the City. B. Prior to the Final Building Inspection, the Applicant/Owner shall: 1. Request a final inspection by the Planning staff to assure that the development complies with the approved final plans, per Condition A(1), above. Code Re uirements: 1. Expiration of Development Permit: Per LOC 50.07.003.17, the RID approved by this decision shall expire three years following the effective date of the development permit, and can be extended by the City Manager pursuant to the provisions of this section. Tree Protection: Submit a tree protection plan and application in accordance with the arborist recommendations (if required) per LOC 55.08.020 and 55.08.030 for review and approval by staff, including off-site trees that are within the construction zone. The plan shall include: The location of temporary tree protection fencing, consisting of a minimum 6 -foot high cyclone fence secured by steel posts around the tree protection zone, or as recommended by the project arborist and approved by the City. b. A note stating that no fill or compaction shall occur within the critical root zones of any of the trees, or that if fill or compaction is unavoidable, measures will be taken as recommended by a certified arborist to reduce or mitigate the impact of the fill or compaction. The note shall also inform contractors that the project arborist shall be on site and oversee all construction activities within the tree protection zone. A note that clearly informs all site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone. The applicant and contractor(s) shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. d. A sign shall be attached to the tree protection fencing which states that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior written approval has been obtained from the City Manager and project arborist. LU 13-0025 14 Page 14 of 16 Note: Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Section are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, and related code provisions. The applicant is advised to review plans for compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations that could relate to the development, i.e., Americans with Disabilities Act, Endangered Species Act. City staff may advise the applicants of issues regarding state and federal laws that the City staff member believes would be helpful to the applicants, but any such advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or state law or regulation. Prepared by: A" Jess(.ica Numanoglu -� Senior Planner Reviewed by: Evan Boone Deputy City Attorney Appr ved by: _.._ S. Hamid Pikivai2, N� sitiant Planning Director EXHIBITS A -D [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] E. GRAPHICS/PLANS E1. Tax Map E2. Site Survey E3. Site Pian (proposed) E4. Building Elevations (proposed) E5. Floor Plans (proposed) E6. Roof Plan (proposed) E7. Site Plan (existing) ES. Building Elevations (existing) E9. Floor Plans (existing) Fr% 2 Date S &3 Date Date LU 13-0025 Page 15 of 16 15 E10. Roof Plan (existing) E11. Aerial Photograph E12. Photographs of Homes within 200 feet of the Site F. WRITTEN MATERIALS F1_ Applicant's Narrative F2. Fire Marshal's Memorandum G. LETTERS Neither for nor Against None Support: None Opposition: None Date of Application Submittal: May 23, 2013 Date Application Determined to be Complete: July 9, 2013 State Mandated 120 -Day Rule: November 6, 2013 LU 13-0025 16 Page 16 of 16 APPLICANVOWNER: Sally Caplan TAX LOT REFERENCE: Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map 2 1E 10CA LOCATION: 1227 Lake Front Road sL1I U01121NIN R-7.5 ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7.5 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST FILE NO: LU 13-0025 STAFF: Jessica Numanoglu DATE OF REPORT: October 24, 2013 120 -DAY DECISION DATE: January 21, 20142 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: McVey -South Shore The applicant is requesting Residential Infill Design (RID) Review approval for the following exceptions to R-7.5 dimensional standards in order to construct additions to the existing single-family dwelling and to raise the roof of the existing detached carport: • Decrease the side yard setback for the detached carport from 10 feet to zero; • Decrease the rear yard setback for the dwelling from 30 feet to 9'-9"; • Decrease the Oswego Lake setback for the dwelling from 25 feet to 9'-9"; • Decrease the combined 15 -foot side yard setback for the dwelling to 11'-10"; and, • Increase in the maximum lot coverage from 25% to 47.8%. 1 A tentative staff decision for this application was previously mailed on August 2, 2013. Comments were received prior to 5:00 p.m. on August 16, 2013 on the original application. The applicant modified the application by submission of revised drawings on September 23, 2013. This tentative staff decision responds to the revised application and the prior received comments. z The 120 -day review period was restarted because the applicant submitted revised application materials. EXHIBIT D-2 LU 13-0025 17 18 PRELIMINARY DECISION Approval of LU 13-0025 with conditions. The complete listing of conditions is provided on pages 18-19 of this report. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS I,1 City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code [LOC Chapter 501: LOC 50.01.006 LOC 50.04.001.1 LOC 50.04.003.7 LOC 50.05.011 LOC 50.06.001.2 LOC 50.06.001.4 Loc 50.06.002 LOC 50.06.003.2 LOC 50.06.006.3; 50.07.004.1 LOC 50.06.007.2.0 LOC 50.07.003.1.b LOC 50.07.003.5 LOC 50.07.003.14 LOC 50.07.003.7.b LOC 50.07.003.6 LOC 50.01.003.2.d LOC 50.07.003.10 LOC 50.08.007 Nonconforming Uses and Structures Residential Low Density Zones Dimensional Standards Oswego Lake Setback Flood Management Area Structure Design -Residential Zones Garage Appearance and Location Parking On-site Circulation — Driveways and Fire Access Roads Drainage Standard for Minor Development Maximum Shade Point Height Standard Burden of Proof Conditions of Approval Review of Minor Development Applications Appeal of Minor Development Decision Effect of Decision Interpretation of Approvals Certificate of Occupancy Residential Infill Design Review Standards City of Lake Oswego Tree Code [LOC Chapter 55]: LOC 55.08.020 LOC 55.08.030 IV. FINDINGS A. Background/Existing Conditions: Tree Protection Plan Required Tree Protection Measures Required 1. The property is 5,227 square feet in size and is located on the north side of Lake Front Road, a local street (Exhibit E1). 2. The site is zoned R-7.5 and is developed with a single family dwelling and detached carport (Exhibit E2). Surrounding properties to the south, east and LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 Page 2 of 21 west are also zoned R-7.5 and are developed with single-family residences. The site abuts Oswego Lake on the north side. 3. The existing single- family dwelling and detached carport on the site are nonconforming to many of the R- 7.5 zone dimensional standards, including front, side and rear setbacks and lot coverage (Exhibit E2). 4. The site slopes steeply down towards the lake (Exhibit E2). There are no trees that are five inches in diameter or greater on the site; however, there is a deciduous tree and a fir tree on the abutting lot to the west that are in close proximity to the west property line. V. REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES A. Public Notice to Surrounding „Area: Pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.3.d, the City will send written notice of the preliminary decision of a RID Review application to the neighborhood association, all adjacent neighborhood associations, and all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. If no written comments are received during the 14 -day comment period, then the decision becomes final. If written comments are received within the comment period, a final decision shall be made upon consideration of the comments and a notice of final decision shall be provided [LOC 50.07.003.14.d.iii]. Staff previously prepared a preliminary decision based on the applicant's original submittal that was mailed to the affected neighborhood associations and all property owners within 300 feet of the site on August 2, 2013. Three comments were received during the 14 -day comment period in opposition to the application (Exhibits G-200 — G-202) and one comment was received in favor of the application (Exhibit G1). Following receipt of the comments, the applicant elected to re -open the proceeding by submission of additional materials on September 23, 2013, effectively withdrawing the prior preliminary decision upon the original application. Therefore, this October 24, 2013 staff report is a tentative decision for the revised application. Because comments were received during the comment period following the original tentative decision, this report responds to those comments, as well as the revised application. LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 19 Page 3 of 21 20 A summary of the issues that were raised in the comment letters in opposition to the original application, along with a staff response to each are listed below: The existing dwelling already encroaches in the rear yard and Oswego Lake setbacks and any further encroachment is unacceptable because it would impede the abutting neighbors' views. Further, the development would not be "equal to or better than what is allowed by Code" as required by the RID standards. Response: See discussion under the RID Standard, below. The abutting neighbors are concerned about the owner's intent and process in proceeding with the subject application. They state that consent of the neighbors should be required. Response: An applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the surrounding neighbors prior to submitting a RID application; however, they are not required by Code to do so. There is no criterion for RID applications that requires consent by the neighbors for approval. In accordance with LOC 50.07.003.3.d, staff is required to make a tentative decision based upon the application. The opportunity to submit comments for RID applications is after the tentative decision is issued. If comments are received, then staff reviews those comments and issues a final decision. • The applicant submitted an existing conditions map, which is not a survey of the property as represented (Exhibit E2). Of particular concern is the location of the west wall of the carport. It is unclear whether the wall is on the applicant's property or whether it extends over the west property line. Response: A survey that is stamped and signed by a registered professional surveyor is typically required for RID applications that involve setback exceptions; however, the City does not outline specific requirements for surveys. The "survey of residential property" submitted by the applicant (Exhibit E2) is stamped and signed by a registered professional surveyor, but staff concurs that the map does LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 Page 4 of 21 not illustrate the location of the west wall of the carport. A survey that is stamped and signed by a registered professional surveyor locating the west wall of the carport in greater detail will be required as a condition of approval. If the wall extends over the property line, the applicant will be required to shift the carport to the extent necessary to assure that all portions of the carport are on the applicant's property (note: the existing CMU wall may remain in its existing location). There is a specimen Japanese maple tree and a 38" diameter fir on the property to the west that are in close proximity to the carport and the proposed addition below the deck. An arborist should be required to consult on tree protection to assure these trees are not damaged during construction. Response: See discussion under the Tree Code, below. Based on the comments received, the applicant elected to modify the original proposal and submitted revised application materials on September 23, 2013 (Exhibits E13 -E20 and F3). One email in opposition to the application was received after the revised application materials were submitted (Exhibit G203). In the email, the opponent reiterated his opposition to the applicant's proposal and any other variance sought by the applicant because it would adversely affect the adjoining properties. See discussion under Residential Infill Design Review Standards, below, B. Burden of Proof: Per LOC 50.07.003.1.b, the applicant for a development permit shall bear the burden of proof that the application complies with all applicable review criteria or can be made to comply with applicable criteria by imposition of conditions of approval. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence to enable staff to evaluate the proposal. These documents are listed as exhibits at the end this report. C. Classification of Application LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(15) describes RID Review as a minor development. D. Criteria for Review of Application Per LOC 50.07.003.14.d.ii, for any minor development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal complies with: 1. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 21 Page 5 of 21 22 Dimensional Standards [LOC 50.041 Residential Low Density Zones [LOC 50.04.001.1] The site is zoned R-7.5. The applicant proposes to raise the roof of the existing carport in order to add fill to the driveway to reduce its steepness, construct an addition on the rear of the dwelling to enclose an existing deck area on the lower floor, extend the rear deck by three feet (deck only, not deck roof), and construct a front entry addition (Exhibits E13 -E16). The applicant originally proposed to raise the height of the entire roof on the north side (rear) of the dwelling by up to 6.5 feet as illustrated in Exhibits E4 and E6, which required a RID exception because the rear portion of the dwelling is nonconforming to the rear yard and Oswego Lake setbacks. The applicant submitted revised drawings on September 23, and now proposes to only raise the existing roof over the deck on the north side of the dwelling (Exhibits E14 and E16). Per LOC 50.01.006.c.ii, a change in roof pitch on a nonconforming portion of a structure is permitted outright if the building height is not increased by more than six feet and is less than the underlying zone height. The roof over the deck is proposed to be approximately five feet taller than the existing roof and would have an overall height of approximately 21 feet, which is less than the 35 -foot maximum height permitted in the zone. As a result, no RID exception is required for the proposed change to the existing roof over the deck. The setback, lot coverage, floor area, and height requirements in the R-7.5 zone along with an analysis of compliance for the proposed additions are listed in the matrix, below. LOC 50.04.001.1 Current R-7.5 Zone Standards and Analysis of Compliance Standards Code Requirements Proposed Additions Carport (dwelling) Min Setbacks Front Yard 25 feet 40 feet Side Yards 5 feet min, total combined 15 feet 6'4.5" (west)** 0 (west)** 10 feet — accessory structure X18' 5'-5.5" (east) 30' (east) Rear Yard 30feet —dwelling 9'-9"feet** 68' 15 feet — accessory structure Max Height 35 feet —dwelling (sloped lot) 28 feet 19.5' 24 feet — accessory structure Max Lot 25% 47.8%** Coverage Max Floor Area 3,491 s.f. 3,357 s.f. *Per LOC 50.04.003.3.a, the front setback maybe reduced to the average of the front setback for an existing dwelling or detached garage on an abutting lot and the setback required by the zone. However, in no case can the front setback be reduced to less than 15 feet. As illustrated on Exhibit E3, the detached carport (garage) on the abutting lot to the west has a zero front yard setback; therefore, the front setback on the applicant's lot can be reduced to 15 feet. **RID exception requested. LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 Page 6 of 21 As illustrated on Exhibits E13 -E16 and summarized in the matrix, above, the proposed (revised) development complies with all of the site development limitations in the R-7.5 zone, except the side and rear yard setbacks and maximum lot coverage. The applicant is requesting a RID approval to reduce the rear and side yard setbacks and increase the lot coverage which is discussed under LOC 50.08, below. Oswego Lake Setback [LOC 50.04.003.7] This standard requires that, except for a boathouse and certain other listed buildings/structures, a building shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the property line of the parcels that constitute Oswego Lake. As illustrated on Exhibit E13, the applicant is requesting a RID exception to this standard to reduce the Oswego Lake setback from 25' to 9'-9" for an addition in the northwest corner of the dwelling, which is discussed under LOC 50.08, below. Adiustme_ nts,_Alternatives, and Variances FLOC 50.081 Residential Infill Design Review Standards [LOC 50.08.007] These standards provide an alternative review process for construction or alteration of outright permitted residential dwellings and accessory structures in residential zones that do not meet the clear and objective development standards of the Code, but may be found to be otherwise compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding residential development. The City Manager may grant exceptions to the requirements of the underlying zone if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed design results in development that is equal to or better than development that would meet the clear and objective standards. In making this determination, the City Manager shall consider the dwelling or accessory structure size, relationship to the street, and relationship to the neighbors. In considering additions to existing structures, the analysis is not focused solely on the impact of the addition without looking at the resulting structure and whether that addition is equal or better than if it were placed in a manner that would conform to the clear and objective standards. The question for RID approval is whether the resulting structure (whether conforming or non- conforming) with the addition, is equal or better than development that would meet the clear and objective standards [LU 05-0056, Luhr], [LU 07-0042, Zmrhal]. When applying the RID criteria, the City Manager shall also consider the pattern and character of development of lots within 200 feet of the subject site and any neighborhood design objectives or guidelines for residential development that have been adopted by the local neighborhood association. The McVey -South Shore neighborhood association does not have an adopted neighborhood plan. LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 Page 7 of 21 23 24 The applicant has provided a photo inventory of dwellings within 200 feet of the site in order to demonstrate the pattern and character of development in the immediate neighborhood (Exhibits E11 and E12). The properties within 200 feet of the site abutting the lake contain larger -sized dwellings on smaller lots than those properties within 200 feet of the site that are on the south side of Lake Front Road. Additionally, the lots to the south sit at a higher elevation and most take access from roads on the upslope side of the property rather than Lake Front Road. The pattern and character of development on the lake -front properties are distinctly different than the pattern and character of the development on properties along the south side of Lake Front Road. Although the lots to the south are required to be considered, the differences in the character of development between those properties and lots on the north side of Lake Front Road shall be taken into consideration and the lakefront lots shall be predominate in weighing the neighborhood compatibility. The applicant is requesting to reduce the side, rear, and Oswego Lake setbacks and increase the maximum 25% lot coverage in order to construct additions to the existing dwelling and to raise the roof of the existing detached carport. Following is a discussion of the RID criteria for the exceptions proposed in the revised design. Residential Dwelling or Accessory Structure Size Refers to exceptions to Floor Area, Lot coverage, Yard setbacks, Building Height, and Accessory Structures An exception to the standards listed above may be permitted when a more positive relationship between the size of the dwelling and the scale and character of a neighborhood can be demonstrated in other ways. The degree to which the dwelling design offers features that diminish the perceived scale and improves the perceived character is determined by consideration of distance and visibility from the street and adjoining properties, topography, building number, form, mass and orientation, and landscaping. The pattern and character of development on lakefront properties consists of predominantly larger homes on smaller lots located close to the street and the adjacent dwellings (Exhibits E11 and E12). Many of the lake -front lots do not appear to meet the front and/or rear side yard setbacks and appear to exceed the maximum lot coverage prescribed by the zone. The development proposed by the applicant is consistent with this pattern and similar in scale and bulk to other dwellings and carports in the vicinity. The proposed additions on the south side of the dwelling at the entry and in the northeast corner, and the modification to the existing carport roof do not significantly increase the perceived scale or size of these structures. The following locational factors and design features of the proposed development diminish the perceived scale and improve the perceived character of the structures: LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 Page 8 of 21 • The proposed addition enclosing the area below the existing covered deck does not expand the existing building footprint (Exhibits E14, E15, E18 and E19). The enclosure would be partially visible to the neighbor to the west and not visible at all from the dwelling on the property to the east. The dwellings across the lake are over 500 feet away. As a result, the addition will not add significantly to the overall bulk and scale of the 2 -story dwelling as viewed from neighboring properties. • The overall height of the existing dwelling is 24 feet, which is well below the maximum 35 -foot height allowed in the zone, and the existing dwelling is below the maximum 3,491 s.f. of floor area that is permitted on the site. The addition below the rear deck maintains this existing height and complies with the maximum permitted floor area. The proposed addition has the least impact to the perceived size of the dwelling than if it were to meet the required setbacks because the additional square -footage would be very visibly located over the existing dwelling, thereby increasing the height of the dwelling as viewed by neighboring properties. • The extension of the deck by three feet into the rear and Oswego Lake setbacks does not significantly increase the bulk or size of the existing dwelling because the deck extension will be uncovered and will have an open cable railing system to allow views through it (Exhibit E14). • Of the 6-7 lakefront properties that are within 200 feet of the applicant's property, the majority have dwellings and decks that do not meet the rear or side yard setbacks (Exhibit E11). The resulting dwelling will be consistent with the prevailing pattern of rear and side yard setbacks for lakefront properties. • The entry addition on the south side of the dwelling meets all yard setback requirements and is below the main roof ridgeline (Exhibits E13 and E14). Because the existing entry to the dwelling sits approximately 10 feet below the level of Lake Front Road and is recessed, the existing entry has little or no relationship to the street. The proposed entry addition is relatively small, will not increase the perceived size of the dwelling from any elevation, and will significantly improve the dwelling's relationship to the street by providing a more prominent entry feature. LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 25 Page 9 of 21 26 • The carport on the lot to the west does not meet the side or front setback and the garage on the property to the east does not meet the front setback (Exhibit E3). This pattern of setbacks for garages and carports is common for the lots on the north side of Lake Front Road (Exhibits E11 and E12). Additionally, the applicant proposes to maintain the existing footprint of the carport and is only proposing to raise the height of the roof. Because the existing carport roof sits lower in elevation than both of the carport and garages on the abutting properties (see picture, above) and the new roof will match the height of the carport abutting the site to the west, the increase in the roof height will be more consistent with the surrounding development. Staff finds that the requested exceptions to the rear, side, and Oswego Lake setbacks and lot coverage are consistent with the pattern of setbacks and lot coverage on other lakefront lots in the vicinity. Staff finds that the requested exceptions result in a more visually engaging fagade from the street that is more commensurate with the scale of development on abutting lots and does not add any significant mass or bulk as viewed from the other elevations. For these reasons, the resulting design creates a more compatible,'positive relationship between the size of the proposed residential dwelling and the scale and character of the neighborhood. Relationship to the Street Refers to exceptions to Front Yard Setback, Street Front Setback Plane, and Garage Appearance and Location This consideration — relationship to the street -- is not applicable to the consideration of an exception to side, rear and Oswego Lake setbacks or lot coverage requirements. Staff notes, however, that the proposed entry addition will result in a more prominent and inviting entry to the home that will improve the dwelling's relationship to the street (Exhibits E14 and E18). Relationship to the Neighbors Refers to exceptions to Side Yard Setback, Side Yard Setback Planes, Side Yard Appearance and Screening, and Long Wall Planes Infill that is compatible will not diminish the scale, character or privacy of neighboring houses and will avoid visual conflict with neighbors. The relationship between a proposed house and the neighboring dwellings is determined by evaluating distance and visibility from adjoining properties, preservation of existing landscape features perceived to be of value to adjacent properties, topography, perceived proportion relative to adjacent properties, perceived sight lines to and from windows and decks, treatment of elevations visible to adjacent properties, and landscaping and screening. Typically, a house design's relationship to the neighbors is addressed through the following standards: side yard setback; side yard elevation. An exception to the standards may be approved when a proposed design of a structure is equal or better than development that would meet the clear and objective zone requirements, because the proposed design demonstrates a more compatible, positive relationship to the scale, character and privacy of its neighbors. LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 Page 10 of 21 Three letters in opposition to the application were previously submitted by the abutting neighbors and their representative during the comment period of the original application (Exhibits G200 -G202), and one was submitted following the modification of the application and prior to the writing of this report (Exhibit G203). The representative of the neighbors submitted copies of the applicant's original plans with notes added labeling finished floor elevations, sight lines, required setbacks, and other notes. As stated earlier, because comments were received during or after the comment period following the original tentative decision, this report responds to those comments, as well as the revised application. The letters in opposition contend that the existing dwelling already encroaches in the rear yard and Oswego Lake setbacks and any further encroachment is unacceptable because it would impede views. Additionally, the letters in opposition argue that the development would not be "equal to or better than what is allowed by Code" as required by the RID standards. One of the objections raised related to the raising of the roof on the north side of the dwelling: it argued that raising of the roof would impact views of the lake (Exhibit G200 -G202). The applicant submitted revised drawings on September 23 scaling back the proposed modification to the roof on the north side of the dwelling so that a RID exception is no longer required. As discussed previously, the applicant now proposes to change the flat roof over the existing deck to a gable roof that is approximately five feet taller than the existing roof and would have an overall height of approximately 21 feet, which is allowed outright per LOC 50.01.006.c.ii. Based upon the revised application, staff finds that the resulting structure design is equal or better than and demonstrates a more compatible, positive relationship to the scale, character and privacy of its neighbors than development that would meet the clear and objective standards by utilizing the following design features and locational factors: • The character and privacy of the neighbors to the west are maintained because the addition below the deck will be within the existing footprint along the west side and does not encroach any further into the side setback than the existing dwelling. Additionally, because the applicant's dwelling is closer to the lake than the dwelling to the west, the area of the addition is approximately 16 feet forward of the nearest point of the LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 Page 11 of 21 27 28 dwelling to the west; therefore, there are no privacy conflicts (Exhibit E13). There is no impact from the side yard exception to the neighbor to the east because the addition is contained within the existing building footprint on the west side of the dwelling and cannot be seen from the existing dwelling to the east. • The deck over the proposed addition is at elevation 118.69'. According to the materials submitted by the representative in Exhibit G202, the finished floor elevation of the main level of the dwelling to the west is 127.10' and the elevation at 5 -foot eye level is 132.10'. The finished floor elevation of the basement level of the dwelling to the west is 118.10' with an eye level elevation of 123.10'. Because the uppermost level of the proposed addition is 8-13 feet below the finished floor and eye level elevation of the main floor of the dwelling to the west, staff finds that the addition will have little to no impact on the existing views from this level. Similarly, because the finished floor elevation of the basement of the dwelling to the west is about even with the top of the proposed addition and the actual eye level elevation is approximately four feet higher than the addition, there is also little to no impact on the existing views from the basement level of the dwelling to the west. The addition below the deck has no impact to the views of the dwelling to the east because the addition is even with the existing east rear wall of the dwelling and cannot be seen from the dwelling to the east (see photograph, below). [Note: the roof over the deck is proposed to be modified from a flat to a pitched roof as allowed outright by LOC 50.01.006.c.ii. Although a RID exception is not required for this roof modification, staff notes that the highest point of this roof would be at elevation 130.89', which is about 1.2 feet lower than the eye level elevation of the main LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 Page 12 of 21 floor of the dwelling to the west.] • The existing deck above the addition is proposed to be extended three feet beyond the rear wall of the addition toward the rear property line and will not be covered (Exhibits E13 -E14). A cable railing will be utilized to maintain existing transparency of the second floor deck railing. • The existing carport wall on the west property line will be reused and the existing footprint of the carport will not be changed; therefore, privacy to the neighbor to the west will not be affected by the side yard setback exception for the carport. • The proposed roof of the carport is designed to slope away from the neighbors to the east and west and the peak of the roof will match the height of the carport on the abutting lot to the west, thereby maintaining an appropriate scale with that carport as well as the garage to the east, both of which are taller than the applicant's carport (Exhibit E14). • As illustrated on the aerial photograph of dwellings within 200' of the site (Exhibit E11), most of the lakefront dwellings in the vicinity have small or no side yard setbacks consistent with the side setbacks proposed by the applicant. Staff finds that the design features and locational factors, as discussed above, demonstrate a more compatible, positive relationship to the scale, character and privacy of its neighbors. Conclusion Staff finds that the resulting design is equal or better to a dwelling that could meet the setback and lot coverage standards and that the development is compatible with the neighborhood character in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, staff concludes that the additions and carport roof modification meet the requirements for the requested exceptions pursuant to the RID Review standards. Overlay and Design Districts [LOC 50.051 Flood Management Area [LOC 50.05.011] This standard applies to all development proposed within the "Flood Management Area", which includes lands within the 100 -year flood boundary as depicted on the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps created for the National Flood Insurance Program by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). According to the FEMA maps, the base flood elevation at this site is 99.7' (NGVD-29 Datum). The lowest floor of a habitable residential structure must be at least one foot above the base flood elevation. As illustrated on Exhibit E2, the dwelling is located entirely outside of the 100 -year flood boundary. This standard is met. LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 29 Page 13 of 21 30 2. The applicable Development Standards [LOC 50.06]; Structure Design — Residential Zones [LOC 50.06.001] The following design standards apply to the proposed development. Street Front Setback Plane [LOC 50.06.001.2.bl The front profile of a structure is required to fit behind a plane that starts at the front setback line (front or side yard abutting a street) and extends upward to 20 feet in height, sloping towards the center of the lot at a 6:12 pitch up to the maximum allowed height. As illustrated on Exhibit E4, both the carport and the dwelling fit entirely behind the street front setback plane, thereby complying with this standard. Side Yard Setback Plane — Interior Yards [LOC 50.06.001.2.e1 The side profile of a structure is required to fit behind a plane that starts at the side property lines and extends upward to 12 feet in height, sloping towards the center of the lot at a 12:12 pitch up to the maximum allowed height. Any individual roof form may penetrate the side yard setback plane if it is less than one-third the width of the structure at 12 ft. in height. Staff measured the side yard setback plane on both side yards for the dwelling and found that the additions fit behind both side yard setback planes (Exhibit E4). A portion of the west wall of the existing carport penetrates the side yard setback plane; however, this is an existing nonconforming condition and this wall will not be altered (Exhibits E3, E4 and E7) [LOC 50.01.006.1.d]. Approximately 22% of the raised carport roof penetrates the side yard setback plane at 12 feet in height at the north end of the carport in the area where the existing west wall is nonconforming to this standard (i.e., the roof area meeting the exception criteria does not increase the degree of nonconformity of the.existing west wall). This standard is met. Side Yard Appearance and Screening [LOC 50.06.001.2.fl The development must comply with one of the side yard appearance and screening treatments: Maximum Side Yard Plane, Side Yard Features, or Screening. As shown on Exhibit E4, the additions comply with the Maximum Side Yard Plane treatment because the affected side yard plane on the west side is approximately 330 square feet, which is below the 750 square -foot maximum size for side yard planes. The side yard plane on the east side of the dwelling and the west side of the carport are not proposed to be altered by the proposed additions. The east side of the carport wall consists of a cable railing system that does not increase the side yard wall plane (Exhibit E4). This standard is met. LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 Page 14 of 21 Garage Appearance and Location FLOC 50.06.001.41 Per LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iii, the garage location and appearance standards in LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iv do not apply because the lot is a "steeply sloped lot" as illustrated on Exhibit E2 (see definition of "Lot, Steeply Sloped" in LOC 50.10.003.2). Staff finds that the proposed development complies with all of the Residential Building Design requirements. Parking [LOC 50.06.002) This standard requires that a single-family dwelling provide one off-street parking space. This standard may be satisfied by garage parking for single-family residences The required off-street parking is provided in the carport (Exhibit E3). This standard is met. On -Site Circulation - Driveways and Fire Access Roads [LOC 50.06.003.2] This standard is applicable to all development proposing a new use or an increased use on a site when the development will result in the construction of, or the increased use of private streets, driveways, or parking lot aisles. This standard regulates driveways, including width, slope, and other aspects of geometric design, particularly those related to emergency vehicle access. Driveways serving single- family dwellings shall not exceed 20 percent grade or five percent cross slope. The existing driveway is at an approximately 20% slope (Exhibit E2). The applicant proposes to add approximately two feet of fill to the carport landing and driveway in order to reduce the steepness of the driveway (Exhibit E4). The existing driveway approach will not be altered. According to the Fire Marshal (Exhibit F2), emergency vehicle access to the site is adequate. This standard is met. Drainage Standard for Minor Development [LOC 50.06.006.3.a.ii] This standard requires that drainage alterations, including new development, not adversely affect neighboring properties. The determination of whether or not the application meets the drainage requirements is under the review authority of the City Engineer. The applicant's narrative (Exhibit F1) states that runoff from the additions will be directed to gutters and downspouts that will daylight into the front and rear yards. The Engineering staff notes that the yards do not appear to be large enough to accommodate drainage on site and that it is likely that the existing dwelling drains to the lake. If that is the case, the City Engineer requires that the proposed additions tie into the existing drainage system. LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 31 Page 15 of 21 32 When a development proposal increases the amount of drainage onto abutting property, the abutting property owner must consent or the applicant must demonstrate a right to increase the discharge on the abutting property (there is no "adverse affect" upon neighboring properties if an increase in drainage is either permitted by the neighbor or is within the scope of a drainage easement). Additionally, the applicant must show that any increase in drainage does not adversely affect the public stormwater system [LOC 50.07.003.5.a.iii]. The abutting property is Oswego Lake. The lake is not part of the City's stormwater system and is managed by the Lake Corporation. The applicant will be required to submit approval from the Lake Corporation to direct drainage from the additions to the lake. If discharged into the lake, the new runoff would negligibly increase the amount of lake flow into the Willamette River, without impact on other lake -front properties. Alternatively, if a subsurface infiltration facility is proposed, the Building Division requires such facilities to be engineered with a site specific infiltration test. Compliance with this standard will be reviewed at the time of building permit application. Solar Access [LOC 50.06.0071 Maximum Shade Point Height Standard [LOC 50.06.007.2.c] All single-family structures in any zone are required to meet the Maximum Shade Point Height Standard [LOC 50.06.007.2.c], which protects structures located to the north of the site from shading_ The proposed development is exempt from this standard pursuant to LOC 50.04.004.3.d, because the property to the north is an undevelopable area (Oswego Lake); therefore, there is an insignificant benefit of complying with this standard. 3. Any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application; General Provisions FLOC 50.01 Nonconforming Structures and Uses [L0050.01.006] Per LOC 50.01.006.1.c, a residential structure that is nonconforming may be enlarged or expanded in a manner that does not increase the degree of nonconformity. If approved, the portions of the dwelling that received RID exception(s) would be considered conforming; however, the existing non- conforming portions of the dwelling would still be subject to the non -conforming regulations. Per LOC 50.01.006.c.ii, a change in roof pitch on a nonconforming portion of a structure is permitted outright if the building height is not increased by more than LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 Page 16 of 21 six feet and is less than the underlying zone height. The roof over the deck is proposed to be approximately five feet taller than the existing roof and will be 21 feet tall overall, which is less than the height permitted by the zone. City of Lake Oswego Tree Code [LOC Chapter 55) Tree Removal A tree removal permit is required for removal of any trees five inches in diameter or greater. The applicant is not proposing to remove any trees with this application. Tree Protection Letters in opposition to the original application noted that there is a specimen Japanese maple tree and a 38" diameter fir on the property to the west that are in close proximity to the carport and the proposed addition below the deck (Exhibit G202). They contend that an arborist should be required to consult on tree protection to assure these trees are not damaged during construction. LOC 55.08.030(1) requires tree protection measures to be installed prior to conducted any construction activities within a tree protection zone. Typically, 6 -foot tall temporary chain link fencing is required to be placed at the tree protection zone, which is the zone required to protect the critical root area necessary for the continued health of the trees. As required by LOC 55.08.030(7), no construction, excavation, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless directed by an arborist present on site and approved by the City. In this case, it is not possible to install protection fencing at the driplines of the Japanese maple or the fir tree since the canopies of both trees extend over the existing carport and dwelling; therefore, an arborist will be required to review the construction plans and prescribe appropriate measures to assure the protection of both trees during construction and to be on site during all excavation activities within the driplines of both trees. As required by LOC 55.08.02 and 55.08.030, a tree protection plan in accordance with the arborist's recommendations shall be submitted with the building permit plans for staff review and approval. Tree protection measures must be installed prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Tree protection fencing consists of 6 -foot high chain link fencing supported by 6 -foot high metal posts, placed a maximum of ten feet apart. A note shall be placed on the construction documents that informs the site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to these trees, including bark and root zone, and that no materials should be stored or compaction occur within the root zones of the adjacent trees [LOC 55.08.030]. The contractor shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 33 Page 17 of 21 34 4. Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. There are no outstanding conditions of approval that affect the subject property. V1. CONCLUSION Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that LU 13-0025 complies with all applicable criteria and standards or can be made to comply through the imposition of conditions. VII. ACTION TAKEN Approval of LU 13-0025, subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permits, the Applicant Owner shall: 1. Submit final building plans for review and approval of staff that are the same or substantially similar to the site plan, floor plans, and building elevations illustrated on Exhibits E13 through E16. 2. Submit a survey that is stamped and signed by a registered professional surveyor locating the west wall of the carport in greater detail. If the survey finds that the wall extends over the property line, the applicant shall be required to shift the carport to the extent necessary to assure that all portions of the carport is on the applicant's property. 3. Submit approval from the Lake Corporation authorizing drainage from the proposed additions to be directed to the lake. If any onsite infiltration will be proposed, submit a design for the facility to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. A certified arborist shall be required to review the construction plans and prepare a report prescribing appropriate measures to assure the protection of both trees during construction to be submitted with the tree protection application (see item 2 under Code Requirements, below). The arborist shall be required to be on site during all excavation activities within the driplines of both trees. Submit a Notice of Development Restriction containing the following restriction listed, below, for review and approval of City staff. [Note: staff can provide a template for the notice of development restriction by request.] The dwelling and detached carport on the site received exceptions to the side, rear and Oswego Lake setbacks and lot coverage requirements of R-7.5 zone through the Residential Infill Design Review process and were specifically approved for their design. No external additions or alterations of these structures (including changes to or removal of approved building design features or materials) shall be permitted, LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 Page 18 of 21 including changes during construction, without prior written approval by the City of Lake Oswego, per City of Lake Oswego Planning File No. LU 13-0025. 6. Record the approved Notice of Development Restriction as described in Condition A(3), above, with the Clackamas County Clerk's Office and submit a copy of the recorded document to the City. B. Prior to the a Final Building Inspection, the Applicant/owner shall: 1. Request a final inspection by the Planning staff to assure that the development complies with the approved final plans, per Condition A(1) and A(2), above. Code Requirements: 1. Expiration of Development Permit: Per LOC 50.07.003.17, the RID approved by this decision shall expire three years following the effective date of the development permit, and can be extended by the City Manager pursuant to the provisions of this section. 2. Tree Protection: Submit a tree protection plan and application in accordance with the arborist recommendations (if required) per LOC 55.08.020 and 55.08.030 for review and approval by staff, including off-site trees that are within the construction zone. The plan shall include: The location of temporary tree protection fencing, consisting of a minimum 6 -foot high cyclone fence secured by steel posts around the tree protection zone, or as recommended by the project arborist and approved by the City. b. A note stating that no fill or compaction shall occur within the critical root zones of any of the trees, or that if fill or compaction is unavoidable, measures will be taken as recommended by a certified arborist to reduce or mitigate the impact of the fill or compaction. The note shall also inform contractors that the project arborist shall be on site and oversee all construction activities within the tree protection zone. A note that clearly informs all site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone. The applicant and contractor(s) shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. d. A sign shall be attached to the tree protection fencing which states that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior written approval has been obtained from the City Manager and project arborist. Note: 1. Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Section are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, and related code provisions. The applicant is advised to LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 35 Page 19 of 21 review plans for compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations that could relate to the development, i.e., Americans with Disabilities Act, Endangered Species Act. City staff may advise the applicants of issues regarding state and federal laws that the City staff member believes would be helpful to the applicants, but any such advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or state law or regulation. Prepared by: Jessica Numanoglu Senior Planner Reviewed by: F Evan Boone Deputy City Attorney Approved by: S. Hamid Pjsbi-c -`- ' Assistant Planning Director EXHIBITS A -D [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] E. GRAPHICS/PLANS E1. Tax Map E2. Site Survey E3. Site Plan (proposed) E4. Building Elevations (proposed) E5. Floor Plans (proposed) E6. Roof Plan (proposed) E7. Site Plan (existing) E8. Building Elevations (existing) E9. Floor Plans (existing) E10. Roof Plan (existing) Date I l , Date E11. Aerial Photograph E12. Photographs of Homes within 200 feet of the Site E13. Revised Site Plan (proposed) E14. Revised Building Elevations (proposed) E15. Revised Floor Plans (proposed) 36 l Date LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 Page 20 of 21 E16. Revised Roof Plan (proposed) E17. Revised Site Plan (existing) E18. Revised Building Elevations (existing) E19. Revised Floor Plans (existing) E20. Revised Roof Plan (existing) F. WRITTEN MATERIALS F1. Applicant's Narrative F2. Fire Marshal's Memorandum F3. Revised Narrative, received September 23, 2013 G. LETTERS Neither for nor Against (G1-99) 15M Support (G100-199) G100. Letter from Gerd and Ruth Hoeren, dated August 12, 2013 Opposition (G200+) G200. Letter from Douglas Reiter, dated August 9, 2013 G201. Letter from Ellen (Ede) Schmidt, dated August 11, 2013 G202. Letter with attachments from Ralph Tahran, dated August 14, 2013 G203. Email from Douglas Reiter, dated October 18, 2013 Date of Application Submittal: May 23, 2013 Date Application Determined to be Complete: July _9,_2013 State Mandated 120 -Day Rule: January 21, 20133 The 120 -day review period was restarted because the applicant submitted revised application materials. LU 13-0025 October 24, 2013 37 Page 21 of 21 38 Awl W"Wela � �'i I'll 111 A, 1:j W.11 L1 10111 L1 BI 11MIKORI W APPLICANT OWNER: Sally Caplan TAX LOT REFERENCE: Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map 2 1E 10CA LOCATION: 1227 Lake Front Road COMP. PLAN DESCRIPTION: R-7.5 ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7.5 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST FILE NO: LU 13-0025 STAFF: Jessica Numanoglu DATE OF REPORT: November 27, 2013 120 -DAY DECISION DATE: January 22, 2014 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: McVey -South Shore The applicant is requesting Residential Infill Design (RID) Review approval for the following exceptions to R-7.5 dimensional standards in order to construct additions to the existing single-family dwelling and to raise the roof of the existing detached carport: • Decrease the side yard setback for the detached carport from 10 feet to zero; + Decrease the rear yard setback for the dwelling from 30 feet to 9'-9"; • Decrease the Oswego Lake setback for the dwelling from 25 feet to 9'-9"; + Decrease the combined 15 -foot side yard setback for the dwelling to 11'-10"; and, • Increase in the maximum lot coverage from 25% to 47.8%. ' The tentative staff decision was mailed on October 25, 2013. This revised staff report is prepared in response to comments received prior to 5:00 p.m. on November 8, 2011 This final staff decision will become effective unless appealed within 15 days from the date of Notice of Final Decision. The deadline to file an appeal is 5:00 p.m. on December 12, 2013. EXHIBIT D-3 LU 13-002539 � .S 40 Approval of LU 13-0025 with conditions. The complete listing of conditions is provided on pages 22-24 of this report. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS H E. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code [LOC Chapter 501: LOC 50.01.006 LOC 50.04.001.1 LOC 50.04.003.7 LOC 50.05.011 LOC 50.06.001.2 LOC 50.06.001.4 LOC 50.06.002 LOC 50.06.003.2 LOC 50.06.006.3; 50.07.004.1 LOC 50.06.007.2.0 LOC 50.07.003.1.b LOC 50.07.003.5 LOC 50.07.003.14 LOC 50.07.003J.b LOC 50.07.003.6 LOC 50.01.003.2.d LOC 50.07.003.10 LOC 50.08.007 Nonconforming Uses and Structures Residential Low Density Zones Dimensional Standards Oswego Lake Setback Flood Management Area Structure Design -Residential Zones Garage Appearance and Location Parking On-site Circulation — Driveways and Fire Access Roads Drainage Standard for Minor Development Maximum Shade Point Height Standard Burden of Proof Conditions of Approval Review of Minor Development Applications Appeal of Minor Development Decision Effect of Decision Interpretation of Approvals Certificate of Occupancy Residential Infill Design Review Standards City of Lake Oswego Tree Code LOC Chapter 551: LOC 55.08.020 LOC 55.08.030 IV. FINDINGS A. Background/Existing Conditions: Tree Protection Plan Required Tree Protection Measures Required 1. The property is 5,227 square feet in size and is located on the north side of Lake Front Road, a local street (Exhibit E1). 2. The site is zoned R-7.5 and is developed with a single family dwelling and detached carport (Exhibit E2). Surrounding properties to the south, east and west are also zoned R-7.5 and are developed with single-family residences. The site abuts Oswego Lake on the north side. LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 2 of 25 3. The existing single-family dwelling and detached carport on the site are nonconforming to many of the R-7.5 zone dimensional standards, including front, side and rear setbacks and lot coverage (Exhibit E2). 4. The site slopes steeply down towards the lake (Exhibit E2). There are no trees that are five inches in diameter or greater on the site; however, there is a deciduous tree and a fir tree on the abutting lot to the west that are in close proximity to the west property line. V. REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES A. Public Notice to Surrounding Area: Pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.3.4, the City sent written notice of the preliminary decision on this RID Review application to the neighborhood association, all adjacent neighborhood associations, and all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site on August 2, 2013.2 During the notice period for the preliminary decision, four comments were received (Exhibits G200 -G202). Following receipt of these comments, the applicant elected to re -open the proceeding by submission of additional materials on September 23, 2013, effectively withdrawing the prior preliminary decision upon the original application. A second preliminary decision (October 24 staff report) based upon the applicant's revised application was mailed on October 25, 2013. Four comments were received during the notice period for the second preliminary decision (Exhibits G101 -G102 and G204 -G205). Below is a summary of the comments received during the notice period for both of the preliminary decisions. Comments received for August 2 Preliminary Decision Three comments were received in opposition to the application (Exhibits G200 — G202) and one comment was received in favor of the application (Exhibit G1). Following is a summary of the issues that were raised in the comment letters in opposition to the application, along with a staff response to each: 2 If no written comments are received during the 14 -day comment period following issuance of a tentative staff decision, then the decision becomes final. If written comments are received within the comment period, a final decision is made upon consideration of the comments and a notice of final decision shall be provided (LOC 50.07.003.14.d.iii). The latter is the case here. LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 41 Page 3 of 25 • The existing dwelling already encroaches in the rear yard and Oswego Lake setbacks and any further encroachment is unacceptable because it would impede the abutting neighbors' views. Further, the development would not be "equal to or better than what is allowed by Code" as required by the RID standards. Response: See discussion under the RID Standard, below. • The abutting neighbors are concerned about the owner's intent and process in proceeding with the subject application. They state that consent of the neighbors should be required. Response: An applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the surrounding neighbors prior to submitting a RID application; however, they are not required by Code to do so. There is no criterion for RID applications that requires consent by the neighbors for approval. In accordance with LOC 50.07.003.3.d, staff is required to make a tentative decision based upon the application. The opportunity to submit comments for RID applications is after the tentative decision is issued. If comments are received, then staff reviews those comments and issues a final decision. • The applicant submitted an existing conditions map, which is not a survey of the property as represented (Exhibit E2). Of particular concern is the location of the west wall of the carport. It is unclear whether the wall is on the applicant's property or whether it extends over the west property line. Response: A survey that is stamped and signed by a registered professional surveyor is typically required • 1'� for RID applications that involve setback exceptions; however, the City does not outline specific requirements .. for surveys. The "survey of residential property" submitted by the applicant (Exhibit E2) is stamped and signed by a registered professional surveyor, but staff concurs that the map does not illustrate the location of the west wall of the carport. A survey that is stamped and signed by a registered professional surveyor locating the west wall of the carport in greater detail will be required as a condition of approval. If the wall extends over the property line, the applicant will be required to shift the LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 42 Page 4 of 25 carport to the extent necessary to assure that all portions of the carport are on the applicant's property (note: the existing CMU wall may remain in its existing location). There is a specimen Japanese maple tree and a 38" diameter fir on the property to the west that are in close proximity to the carport and the proposed addition below the deck. An arborist should be required to consult on tree protection to assure these trees are not damaged during construction. Response: See discussion under the Tree Code, below. One email in opposition to the application was received after the revised application materials were submitted (Exhibit G203). In the email, the opponent reiterated his opposition to the applicant's proposal and any other variance sought by the applicant because it would adversely affect the adjoining properties. Response: See discussion under Residential Infill Design Review Standards, below. Comments received for October 24 Preliminary Decision Two comments were received in opposition to the revised application (Exhibits G204 and G205) and two comments were received in favor of the revised application (Exhibit G101 and G102). Following is a summary of the issues that were raised in the comment letters in opposition to the revised application, along with a staff response to each: • Approving the proposed development would set a bad precedent of overbuilding lots beyond what is allowed by City Code. Response: RID is an alternative process for the review of outright permitted dwellings in residential zones where "an applicant has requested approval of an alternative design that does not meet the clear and objective development standards of the Code but may otherwise be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding residential development" [LOC 50.08.007.1]. The purpose of RID is to allow development that is consistent with and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood (development within 200 feet of the site); therefore, RID exceptions should not be approved if it is contrary to the pattern and character of development in the neighborhood. For example, if an applicant proposed a 10 -foot rear yard setback and the prevailing pattern of rear yard setbacks in the neighborhood was 25 -foot setbacks, the RID request for a 10 -foot setback would not be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. See further discussion under the Residential Infill Design Review Standards, below. LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 5 of 25 43 44 The existing home is already built closer to the lake than is allowed by the current code. Approving a higher roof line on the lake side of the applicant's dwelling further obstructs the abutting neighbor's views of the lake because both of the dwellings on the abutting lots are set back farther from the lake than the applicant's dwelling. Although this roof modification is allowed by the code, it should still be reviewed as part of the RID review. Response: The applicant proposes to raise the existing nonconforming roof over the deck on the rear elevation by approximately five feet (Exhibits E14, E16 and E18). A RID exception is not being requested for this roof modification because it is permitted outright per LOC 50.01.006.1.c.ii (see discussion under Nonconforming Structures and Uses, below). Since the roof modification complies with the outright permitted exception in the Code, it is considered equal to development that would meet the clear and objective standards of the Code. The roof must also fit in with the overall dwelling design, and staff finds that the roof form, proportion and height are complementary to the overall design. A professional, registered survey with all monuments marked should be required before building permits are approved. If the west carport wall is on the property line, the abutting neighbor's consent would be required to use that wall as the carport wall and that neighbor is not willing to grant such consent. A three-foot separation or a fire wall is also required by the Building Code since the wall is less than three feet from the property line. Response: See discussion under the R-7.5 Zone Dimensional Standards, below. • The proposed design is not "better than or equal to" what the Code would require for the protection of the neighbor's view, privacy and property values. Rather, it is simply proposed to get a larger home and does not represent "preserving neighborhood character or privacy of neighboring properties" as is a key consideration of a RID review. Response: See discussion under the Residential Infill Design Review Standards, below. Per Condition A(4) of the October 24 staff report, an arborist is required to review the construction plans in order to assure the protection of the specimen Japanese maple tree to the west of the carport. This arborist review should be completed as part of the RID review and not deferred to the building permit stage. Response: See discussion under the Tree Code standards, below. • The requested lot coverage is significant - an increase from 25% to 47.8%. The existing house and carport are already 1,096 s.f. over the maximum lot coverage allowed by code and no further increase should be allowed, especially since it LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 6 of 25 would all be constructed in the rear yard where the setbacks are already in serious violation. Response: The existing dwelling was built in the 1950's before the City adopted a modern development code in 1961 that regulated site development limitations. As a result, the dwelling is nonconforming to many of the existing code requirements, including setbacks and lot coverage. The existing dwelling has a lot coverage of 46% and the applicant proposes to increase the lot coverage by 85 square feet (Exhibit E3). Of the 85 square feet of additional coverage, 66 square feet is for the 3 -foot uncovered deck extension off the rear of the dwelling (lake side) and 19 square feet is for an entry addition on the front of the dwelling (street side). The proposed entry addition meets all setback requirements. The applicant also proposes a roof modification and addition below the existing second story deck at the rear of the dwelling, however, this roof modification and addition do not increase the existing lot coverage. The proposed exception to increase lot coverage from 25% to 47.8% takes into account both the lot coverage of the existing dwelling and carport (approximately 46%), which has been in existence since the 1950's, and the 85 square -foot increase in lot coverage proposed by the additions. Though 66 square feet of the increase in lot coverage is on the lake side of the dwelling, it is for an uncovered, 3 -foot extension of the existing deck and will utilize a cable railing system, which as discussed under the Residential Infill Design Review Standard below, does not add any significant bulk or scale to the dwelling. • Any further violations to side or rear yard setbacks should only be considered when the adjoining neighbors agree to any further intrusions since such intrusions further impede these neighbor's views and privacy. Both adjoining neighbors strongly disagree with staff's finding that the design features and locational factors of the proposed development demonstrate a more compatible, positive relationship to the scale, character and privacy of its neighbors. Response: An applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the surrounding neighbors prior to submitting a RID application; however, they are not required by Code to do so. There is no criterion for RID applications that requires consent by the neighbors for approval. Though the existing dwelling is nonconforming to several setbacks and lot coverage, the dwelling is below the maximum allowed floor area so the applicant has the ability to add approximately 373 square feet of floor area to the existing dwelling (decks are not included in floor area calculations). As discussed under the Residential Infill Design Standards below, staff finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the resulting dwelling design is equal to or better than if the applicant were to construct additions that complied with all of the clear and objective code standards. LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 7 of 25 45 46 B. Burden of Proof: Per LOC 50.07.003.1.b, the applicant for a development permit shall bear the burden of proof that the application complies with all applicable review criteria or can be made to comply with applicable criteria by imposition of conditions of approval. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence to enable staff to evaluate the proposal. These documents are listed as exhibits at the end this report. C. Classification of Application LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(15) describes RID Review as a minor development. D. Criteria for Review of Application The applicant proposes to raise the roof of the existing carport in order to add fill to the driveway to reduce its steepness, construct an addition on the rear of the dwelling to enclose an existing deck area on the lower floor, extend the rear deck by three feet (deck only, not deck roof), and construct a front entry addition (Exhibits E13 -E16). Per LOC 50.07.003.14.d.ii, for any minor development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal complies with: 1. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; Dimensional Standards [LOC 50.041 Residential Low Density Zones [LOC 50.04.001.1] The site is zoned R-7.5. The applicant originally proposed to raise the height of the entire roof on the north side (rear) of the dwelling by up to 6.5 feet as illustrated in Exhibits E4 and E6, which required a RID exception because the rear portion of the dwelling is nonconforming to the rear yard and Oswego Lake setbacks. The applicant submitted revised drawings on September 23, and now proposes to only raise the existing roof over the deck on the north side of the dwelling (Exhibits E14 and E16). Per LOC 50.01.006.c.ii, a change in roof pitch on a nonconforming portion of a structure is permitted outright if the building height is not increased by more than six feet and is less than the underlying zone height. The roof over the deck is proposed to be approximately five feet taller than the existing roof and would have an overall height of approximately 21 feet, which is less than the 35 -foot maximum height permitted in the zone. As a result, no RID exception is required for the proposed change to the existing roof over the deck. The setback, lot coverage, floor area, and height requirements in the R-7.5 zone along with an analysis of compliance for the proposed additions are listed in the LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page S of 25 matrix on the following page. During the comment period for the second preliminary decision, the neighbors submitted comments arguing that a professional, registered survey with all monuments marked should be required before building permits are approved (Exhibits G204 and G205). They contend that if the west carport wall is on the property line, the abutting neighbor's consent would be required to use that wall as the carport wall and that neighbor is not willing to grant such consent. Additionally, they state that a three-foot separation or a fire wall is required by the Building Code since the wall is less than three feet from the property line. The applicant submitted the following documents prepared by a surveyor: Exhibit E2: A stamped and signed survey locating the existing structures on the site and spot elevations were submitted with the original application materials. The west wall of the existing carport is not shown on this document and staff included Condition A(2) in the October 24 preliminary decision requiring a survey that is stamped and signed by a registered professional surveyor locating the west wall of the carport in greater detail. Exhibit E21: A stamped and signed boundary survey of the applicant's lot was submitted on October 30. Again, this document does, not provide details on the west carport wall. Exhibit E22: A sketched detail of the west carport wall was submitted on November 6. This document is not stamped and signed by the surveyor. The above -listed exhibits do not adequately show the location of the west carport wall. A condition of approval will be imposed to require that a boundary survey that is stamped and signed by a registered professional surveyor be submitted that shows all encroachments and that provides details on the same document showing the location of the west wall of the carport. If the survey finds that the wall encroaches over the property line, the applicant shall be required to relocate the carport to the extent necessary to assure that all portions of the carport is on the applicant's property. Compliance with the Building Code requirements will be reviewed at the time of building permit application. LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 9 of 25 47 48 LOC 50.04.001.1 Current R-7.5 Zone Standards and Analysis of Compliance Standards Code Requirements Proposed Additions Carport (dwelling) Min Setbacks Front Yard 25 feet 40 feet 15'-5"* Side Yards 5 feet min, total combined 15 feet 6'4.5" (west)** 0 (west)** 10 feet — accessory structure >18' S'-5.5" (east) 30' (east) Rear Yard 30 feet — dwelling 9'-9"feet** 68' 15 feet — accessory structure Max Height 35 feet —dwelling (sloped lot) 28 feet 19.5' 24 feet — accessory structure Max Lot 25% 47.8%** Coverage Max Floor Area 3,491 s.f. 3,357 s.f_ *Per LOC 50.04.003.3.a, the front setback maybe reduced to the average of the front setback for an existing dwelling or detached garage on an abutting lot and the setback required by the zone. However, in no case can the front setback be reduced to less than 15 feet. As illustrated on Exhibit E3, the detached carport (garage) on the abutting lot to the west has a zero front yard setback; therefore, the front setback on the applicant's lot can be reduced to 15 feet. **RID exception requested. As illustrated on Exhibits E13 -E16 and summarized in the matrix, above, the proposed (revised) development complies with all of the site development limitations in the R-7.5 zone, except the side and rear yard setbacks and maximum lot coverage. The applicant is requesting a RID approval to reduce the rear and side yard setbacks and increase the lot coverage which is discussed under LOC 50.08, below. Oswego Lake Setback [LOC 50.04.003.7] This standard requires that, except for a boathouse and certain other listed buildings/structures, a building shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the property line of the parcels that constitute Oswego Lake. As illustrated on Exhibit E13, the applicant is requesting a RID exception to this standard to reduce the Oswego Lake setback from 25' to 9'-9" for an addition in the northwest corner of the dwelling, which is discussed under LOC 50.08, below. Adiustments, Alternatives, and Variances LOC 50.081 Residential Infill Design Review Standards [LOC 50.08.007] These standards provide an alternative review process for construction or alteration of outright permitted residential dwellings and accessory structures in residential zones that do not meet the clear and objective development standards of the Code, but may be found to be otherwise compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding residential development. LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 10 of 25 The City Manager may grant exceptions to the requirements of the underlying zone if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed design results in development that is equal to or better than development that would meet the clear and objective standards. In making this determination, the City Manager shall consider the dwelling or accessory structure size, relationship to the street, and relationship to the neighbors. In considering additions to existing structures, the analysis is not focused solely on the impact of the addition without looking at the resulting structure and whether that addition is equal or better than if it were placed in a manner that would conform to the clear and objective standards. The question for RID approval is whether the resulting structure (whether conforming or non- conforming) with the addition, is equal or better than development that would meet the clear and objective standards [LU 05-0056, Luhr], [LU 07-0042, Zmrhal]. When applying the RID criteria, the City Manager shall also consider the pattern and character of development of lots within 200 feet of the subject site and any neighborhood design objectives or guidelines for residential development that have been adopted by the local neighborhood association. The McVey -South Shore neighborhood association does not have an adopted neighborhood plan. The applicant has provided a photo inventory of dwellings within 200 feet of the site in order to demonstrate the pattern and character of development in the immediate neighborhood (Exhibits E11 and E12). The properties within 200 feet of the site abutting the lake contain larger -sized dwellings on smaller lots than those properties within 200 feet of the site that are on the south side of Lake Front Road. Additionally, the lots to the south sit at a higher elevation and most take access from roads on the upslope side of the property rather than Lake Front Road. The pattern and character of development on the lakefront properties are distinctly different than the pattern and character of the development on properties along the south side of Lake Front Road. Although the lots to the south are required to be considered, the differences in the character of development between those properties and lots on the north side of Lake Front Road shall be taken into consideration and the lakefront lots shall be predominate in weighing the neighborhood compatibility. The applicant is requesting to reduce the side, rear, and Oswego Lake setbacks and increase the maximum 25% lot coverage in order to construct additions to the existing dwelling and to raise the roof of the existing detached carport. Following is a discussion of the RID criteria for the exceptions proposed in the revised design. Residential Dwelling or Accessory Structure Size Refers to exceptions to Floor Area, Lot coverage, Yard setbacks, Building Height, and Accessory Structures An exception to the standards listed above may be permitted when a more positive relationship between the size of the dwelling and the scale and character of a LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 49 Page 11 of 25 50 neighborhood can be demonstrated in other ways. The degree to which the dwelling design offers features that diminish the perceived scale and improves the perceived character is determined by consideration of distance and visibility from the street and adjoining properties, topography, building number, form, mass and orientation, and landscaping. There are six lakefront lots containing dwellings that are within 200 feet of the applicant's lot (1135, 1159, 1207, 1217, 1237, and 1307 Lake Front Road). Including the applicant's property, five lots are nonconforming to the minimum lot size required by the zone (Exhibit E1), four are nonconforming to the minimum side yard setbacks, five are nonconforming to the rear yard and Oswego Lake setbacks, and four appear to be nonconforming to the maximum lot coverage (Exhibit E23). The pattern and character of development on these lakefront properties consists of predominantly larger homes on smaller lots, with most of the dwellings having less than the minimum required side and rear yard setbacks and greater lot coverage than is permitted in the zone (Exhibits E11, E12 and E23). The development proposed by the applicant is consistent with this pattern on the lakefront lots within 200 feet and is similar in scale and bulk to other dwellings and carports in the vicinity. The proposed additions on the south side of the dwelling at the entry and in the northeast corner, and the modification to the existing carport roof do not significantly increase the perceived scale or size of these structures. The following locational factors and design features of the proposed development diminish the perceived scale and improve the perceived character of the structures: • The proposed addition enclosing the area below the existing covered deck does not expand the existing building footprint or increase the lot coverage on the site (Exhibits E14, E15, E18 and E19). The enclosure would be partially visible to the neighbor to the west and not visible at all from the dwelling on the property to the east. The dwellings across the lake are over 500 feet away. As a result, the addition will not add significantly to the overall bulk and scale of the 2 -story dwelling as viewed from neighboring properties. • The overall height of the existing dwelling is 24 feet, which is well below the maximum 35 -foot height allowed in the zone, and the existing dwelling at 3,118 square feet is below the maximum 3,491 s.f. of floor area that is permitted on the site. The addition below the rear deck maintains this existing height and complies with the maximum permitted floor area. The proposed addition has the least impact to the perceived size of the dwelling than if it were to meet the required setbacks because the additional square -footage would need to be located over the existing dwelling, thereby increasing the height of the dwelling - potentially up to the maximum 35 feet allowed. A compliant addition over the existing dwelling would be highly visible to the adjacent neighbors and would increase the perceived size and scale of the dwelling. • The extension of the deck by three feet into the rear and Oswego Lake setbacks does not significantly increase the bulk or size of the existing dwelling because LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 12 of 25 the deck extension will be uncovered and will have an open cable railing system to allow views through it (Exhibit E14). • Of the six lakefront properties that contain single-family dwellings that are within 200 feet of the applicant's property, the majority have dwellings and decks that do not meet the rear or side yard setbacks (Exhibit E11). The resulting dwelling will be consistent with the prevailing pattern of rear and side yard setbacks for lakefront properties. • The entry addition on the south side of the dwelling meets all yard setback requirements and is below the main roof ridgeline (Exhibits E13 and E14). Because the existing entry to the dwelling sits approximately 10 feet below the level of Lake Front Road and is recessed, the existing entry has little or no relationship to the street. The proposed entry addition is relatively small, will not increase the perceived size of the dwelling from any elevation, and will significantly improve the dwelling's relationship to the street by providing a more prominent entry feature. • The carport on the lot to the west does not meet the side or front setback and the garage on the property to the east does not meet the front setback (Exhibit E3). This pattern of setbacks for garages and carports is common for the lots on the north side of Lake Front Road (Exhibits E11 and E12). Additionally, the applicant proposes to maintain the existing footprint of the carport and is only proposing to raise the height of the roof. Because the existing carport roof sits lower in elevation than both of the carport and garages on the abutting properties (see picture, below) and the new roof will match the height of the carport abutting the site to the west, the increase in the roof height will be more consistent with the surrounding development. Staff finds that the requested exceptions to the rear, side, and Oswego Lake setbacks and lot coverage are consistent with the pattern of setbacks and lot coverage on other lakefront lots in the vicinity. Staff finds that the requested exceptions result in a more visually engaging facade from the street that is more commensurate with the scale of development on abutting lots and does not add any significant mass or bulk as viewed from the other elevations. For these reasons, the resulting design creates a more compatible, positive relationship between the size of the proposed residential dwelling and the scale and character of the neighborhood. LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 51 Page 13 of 25 52 Relationship to the Street Refers to exceptions to Front Yard Setback, Street Front Setback Plane, and Garage Appearance and Location This consideration — relationship to the street -- is not applicable to the consideration of an exception to side, rear and Oswego Lake setbacks or lot coverage requirements. Staff notes, however, that the proposed entry addition will result in a more prominent and inviting entry to the home that will improve the dwelling's relationship to the street (Exhibits E14 and E18). Relationship to the Neighbors Refers to exceptions to Side Yard Setback, Side Yard Setback Planes, Side Yard Appearance and Screening, and Long Wall Planes Infill that is compatible will not diminish the scale, character or privacy of neighboring houses and will avoid visual conflict with neighbors. The relationship between a proposed house and the neighboring dwellings is determined by evaluating distance and visibility from adjoining properties, preservation of existing landscape features perceived to be of value to adjacent properties, topography, perceived proportion relative to adjacent properties, perceived sight lines to and from windows and decks, treatment of elevations visible to adjacent properties, and landscaping and screening. Typically, a house design's relationship to the neighbors is addressed through the following standards: side yard setback; side yard elevation. An exception to the standards may be approved when a proposed design of a structure is equal or better than development that would meet the clear and objective zone requirements, because the proposed design demonstrates a more compatible, positive relationship to the scale, character and privacy of its neighbors. A total of six letters in opposition to the application were submitted by the abutting neighbors and their representative during the comment periods for the two preliminary decisions issued on this application (Exhibits G200 -G205). In Exhibit G202, the representative of the neighbors submitted copies of the applicant's original plans with notes added labeling finished floor elevations, sight lines, required setbacks, and other notes. The letters contend that the existing dwelling already encroaches in the rear yard and Oswego Lake setbacks and any further encroachment is unacceptable because it would impede views. Additionally, the letters argue that the development would not be "equal to or better than what is allowed by Code" as required by the RID standards. One of the objections raised related to the raising of the roof on the north side of the dwelling: it argued that raising of the roof would impact views of the lake (Exhibit G200 -G202). The applicant submitted revised drawings on September 23 scaling back the proposed modification to the roof on the north side of the dwelling so that a RID exception is no longer required. As discussed previously, the applicant now proposes to change the flat roof over the existing deck to a gable roof that is approximately five feet taller than the existing roof and would have an overall height of approximately 21 feet, which is allowed outright per LOC 50.01.006.c.ii. LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 14 of 25 Based upon the revised application, staff finds that the resulting structure design is equal or better than and demonstrates a more compatible, positive relationship to the scale, character and privacy of its neighbors than development that would meet the clear and objective standards by utilizing the following design features and locational factors: • The character and privacy of the neighbors to the west are maintained because the addition below the deck will be within the existing footprint along the west side and does not encroach any further into the side setback than the existing dwelling. Additionally, because the applicant's dwelling is closer to the lake than the dwelling to the west, the area of the addition is approximately 16 feet forward of the nearest point of the dwelling to the west; therefore, there are no privacy conflicts (Exhibit E13). There is no impact from the side yard exception to the neighbor to the east because the addition is contained within the existing building footprint on the west side of the dwelling and cannot be seen from the existing dwelling to the east. • The deck over the proposed addition is at elevation 118.69'. According to the materials submitted by the neighbor's representative in Exhibit G202, the finished floor elevation of the main level of the dwelling to the west is 127.10' and the elevation at 5 -foot eye level is 132.10'. The finished floor elevation of the basement level of the dwelling to the west is 118.10' with an eye level elevation of 123.10'. Because the uppermost level of the proposed addition is 8- 13 feet below the finished floor and eye level elevations of the main floor of the dwelling to the west, staff finds that the addition should have little to no impact on the existing views from this level. Similarly, because the finished floor elevation of the basement of the dwelling to the west is about even with the top of the proposed addition and the actual eye level elevation is approximately four feet higher than the addition, there should also be little to no impact on the existing views from the basement level of the dwelling to the west. The addition below the deck has no impact to the views of the dwelling to the east because the addition is even with the existing east rear wall of the dwelling and cannot be seen from the dwelling to the east (see photograph, below). [Note: the roof over the deck is proposed to be modified from a flat to a pitched roof as allowed outright by LOC 50.01.006.c.ii. Although a RID exception is not required for this roof modification, staff notes that the highest point of this roof would be at LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 53 Page 15 of 25 54 elevation 130.89', which is about 1.2 feet lower than the eye level elevation of the main floor of the dwelling to the west.] • The proposed additions have the least impact to views and privacy of the neighbors than if the additions were to comply with the setback and lot coverage standards because any additional square -footage would need to be located over the existing dwelling to comply with setbacks and lot coverage, thereby increasing the height of the dwelling - potentially up to the maximum 35 feet allowed. A compliant addition over the existing dwelling would be highly visible to the adjacent neighbors and could significantly impact views of the lake on these adjacent lots. • The existing deck above the addition is proposed to be extended three feet beyond the rear wall of the addition toward the rear property line and will not be covered (Exhibits E13 -E14). A cable railing will be utilized to maintain existing transparency of the second floor deck railing. • The existing carport wall on the west property line will be reused and the existing footprint of the carport will not be changed; therefore, privacy to the neighbor to the west will not be affected by the side yard setback exception for the carport. • The proposed roof of the carport is designed to slope away from the neighbors to the east and west and the peak of the roof will match the height of the carport on the abutting lot to the west, thereby maintaining an appropriate scale with that carport as well as the garage to the east, both of which are taller than the applicant's carport (Exhibit E14). • As illustrated on the aerial photograph of dwellings within 200' of the site (Exhibit E11), most of the lakefront dwellings in the vicinity have small or no side yard setbacks consistent with the side setbacks proposed by the applicant. LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 16 of 25 Staff finds that the design features and locational factors, as discussed above, demonstrate a more compatible, positive relationship to the scale, character and privacy of its neighbors. Conclusion Staff finds that the resulting design is equal or better to a dwelling that could meet the setback and lot coverage standards and that the development is compatible with the neighborhood character in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, staff concludes that the additions and carport roof modification meet the requirements for the requested exceptions pursuant to the RID Review standards. Overlay and Design Districts [LOC 50.051 Flood Management Area [LOC 50.05.011] This standard applies to all development proposed within the "Flood Management Area", which includes lands within the 100 -year flood boundary as depicted on the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps created for the National Flood Insurance Program by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). According to the FEMA maps, the base flood elevation at this site is 99.7' (NGVD-29 Datum). The lowest floor of a habitable residential structure must be at least one foot above the base flood elevation. As illustrated on Exhibit E2, the dwelling is located entirely outside of the 100 -year flood boundary. This standard is met. 2. The applicable Development Standards [LOC 50.06]; Structure Design — Residential Zones [LOC 50.06.001] The following design standards apply to the proposed development. Street Front Setback Plane [LOC 50.06.001.2.bl The front profile of a structure is required to fit behind a plane that starts at the front setback line (front or side yard abutting a street) and extends upward to 20 feet in height, sloping towards the center of the lot at a 6:12 pitch up to the maximum allowed height. As illustrated on Exhibit E4, both the carport and the dwelling fit entirely behind the street front setback plane, thereby complying with this standard. Side Yard Setback Plane — Interior Yards [LOC 50.06.001.2.e1 The side profile of a structure is required to fit behind a plane that starts at the side property lines and extends upward to 12 feet in height, sloping towards the center LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 17 of 25 55 56 of the lot at a 12:12 pitch up to the maximum allowed height. Any individual roof form may penetrate the side yard setback plane if it is less than one-third the width of the structure at 12 ft. in height. Staff measured the side yard setback plane on both side yards for the dwelling and found that the additions fit behind both side yard setback planes (Exhibit E4). A portion of the west wall of the existing carport penetrates the side yard setback plane, however, this is an existing nonconforming condition and this wall will not be altered (Exhibits E3, E4 and E7) [LOC 50.01.006.1.d]. Approximately 22% of the raised carport roof penetrates the side yard setback plane at 12 feet in height at the north end of the carport in the area where the existing west wall is nonconforming to this standard (i.e., the roof area meeting the exception criteria does not increase the degree of nonconformity of the existing west wall). This standard is met. Side Yard Appearance an Screening [LOC 50.06.001.2.fl The development must comply with one of the side yard appearance and screening treatments: Maximum Side Yard Plane, Side Yard Features, or Screening. As shown on Exhibit E4, the additions comply with the Maximum Side Yard Plane treatment because the affected side yard plane on the west side is approximately 330 square feet, which is below the 750 square -foot maximum size for side yard planes. The side yard plane on the east side of the dwelling and the west side of the carport are not proposed to be altered by the proposed additions. The east side of the carport wall consists of a cable railing system that does not increase the side yard wall plane (Exhibit E4). This standard is met. Garage Appearance and Location [LOC 50.06.001.41 Per LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iii, the garage location and appearance standards in LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iv do not apply because the lot is a "steeply sloped lot" as illustrated on Exhibit E2 (see definition of "Lot, Steeply Sloped" in LOC 50.10.003.2). Staff finds that the proposed development complies with all of the Residential Building Design requirements. Parking [LOC 50.06.002] This standard requires that a single-family dwelling provide one off-street parking space. This standard may be satisfied by garage parking for single-family residences. The required off-street parking is provided in the carport (Exhibit E3). This standard is met. On -Site Circulation - Driveways and Fire Access Roads [LOC 50.06.003.2] This standard is applicable to all development proposing a new use or an increased use on a site when the development will result in the construction of, or the LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 18 of 25 increased use of private streets, driveways, or parking lot aisles. This standard regulates driveways, including width, slope, and other aspects of geometric design, particularly those related to emergency vehicle access. Driveways serving single- family dwellings shall not exceed 20 percent grade or five percent cross slope. The existing driveway is at an approximately 20% slope (Exhibit E2). The applicant proposes to add approximately two feet of fill to the carport landing and driveway in order to reduce the steepness of the driveway (Exhibit E4). The existing driveway approach will not be altered. According to the Fire Marshal (Exhibit F2), emergency vehicle access to the site is adequate. This standard is met. Drainage Standard for Minor Development [LOC 50.06.006.3.a.ii] This standard requires that drainage alterations, including new development, not adversely affect neighboring properties. The determination of whether or not the application meets the drainage requirements is under the review authority of the City Engineer. The applicant's narrative (Exhibit F1) states that runoff from the additions will be directed to gutters and downspouts that will daylight into the front and rear yards. The City Engineer made the following findings and conclusions: The Engineering staff notes that the yards do not appear to be large enough to accommodate drainage on site and that it is likely that the existing dwelling drains to the lake. If that is the case, the City Engineer requires that the proposed additions tie into the existing drainage system. When a development proposal increases the amount of drainage onto abutting property, the abutting property owner must consent or the applicant must demonstrate aright to increase the discharge on the abutting property (there is no "adverse affect" upon neighboring properties if an increase in drainage is either permitted by the neighbor or is within the scope of a drainage easement). Additionally, the applicant must show that any increase in drainage does not adversely affect the public stormwater system [LOC 50.07.003.5.a.iii). The abutting property is Oswego Lake. The lake is not part of the City's stormwater system and is managed by the Lake Corporation. The applicant should be required to submit approval from the Lake Corporation to direct drainage from the additions to the lake. If discharged into the lake, the new runoff would negligibly increase the amount of lake flow into the Willamette River, without impact on other lake -front properties. Alternatively, if a subsurface infiltration facility is proposed, the Building Division requires such facilities to be engineered with a site specific infiltration test. LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 19 of 25 57 58 Compliance with this standard will be reviewed at the time of building permit application. This standard can be met with the imposition of conditions of approval. Solar Access [LOC 50.06.0071 Maximum Shade Point Height Standard [LOC 50.06.007.2.c] All single-family structures in any zone are required to meet the Maximum Shade Point Height Standard [LOC 50.06.007.2.c], which protects structures located to the north of the site from shading. The proposed development is exempt from this standard pursuant to LOC 50.04.004.3.d, because the property to the north is an undevelopable area (Oswego Lake); therefore, there is an insignificant benefit of complying with this standard. 3. Any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application; General Provisions [LOC 50.011 Nonconforming Structures and Uses [L0050.01.006] Per LOC 50.01.006.1.c, a residential structure that is nonconforming may be enlarged or expanded in a manner that does not increase the degree of nonconformity. If approved, the portions of the dwelling that received RID exception(s) would be considered conforming; however, the existing non- conforming portions of the dwelling would still be subject to the non -conforming regulations. Per LOC 50.01.006.c.ii, a change in roof pitch on a nonconforming portion of a structure is permitted outright if the building height is not increased by more than six feet and is less than the underlying zone height. The roof over the deck is proposed to be approximately five feet taller than the existing roof and will be 21 feet tall overall, which is less than the height permitted by the zone. City of Lake Oswego Tree Code [LOC Chapter 55] Tree Removal A tree removal permit is required for removal of any trees five inches in diameter or greater. The applicant is not proposing to remove any trees with this application. LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 20 of 25 Tree Protection Letters in opposition to the original application noted that there is a specimen Japanese maple tree and a 38" diameter fir on the property to the west that are in close proximity to the carport and the proposed addition below the deck (Exhibit G202). Another letter was received during the notice period for the second preliminary staff decision contending that an arborist report for the Japanese Maple should be required as part of the RID review and not deferred to the building permit stage as is required by Condition A(4) (Exhibit G205). LOC 55.08.030(1) requires tree protection measures to be installed prior to conducting any construction activities within a tree protection zone. Typically, 6 -foot tall temporary chain link fencing is required to be placed at the tree protection zone, which is the zone required to protect the critical root area necessary for the continued health of the trees. As required by LOC 55.08.030(7), no construction, excavation, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless directed by an arborist present on site and approved by the City. In this case, it is not possible to install protection fencing at the driplines of the Japanese maple or the fir tree since the canopies of both trees extend over the existing carport and dwelling; therefore, a condition of approval [Condition A(4), below] is being imposed to require an arborist to review the construction plans and prescribe appropriate measures to assure the protection of both trees during construction and to be on site during all excavation activities within the driplines of both trees. As required by LOC 55.08.02 and 55.08.030, a tree protection plan in accordance with the arborist's recommendations shall be submitted with the building permit plans for staff review and approval. Tree protection measures must be installed prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Tree protection fencing consists of 6 -foot high chain link fencing supported by 6 -foot high metal posts, placed a maximum of ten feet apart. A note shall be placed on the construction documents that informs the site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to these trees, including bark and root zone, and that no materials should be stored or compaction occur within the root zones of the adjacent trees [LOC 55.08.0301. The contractor shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. The City's tree protection requirements are applicable to any development within the tree protection zone of a tree that is five inches in diameter or greater and the review and inspection of tree protection measures is a routine part of the building permit review process. The building permit will not be issued until Condition A(4) has been satisfied and the tree protection measures have been inspected and approved by staff. No evidence has been submitted that would suggest that any additional conditions or earlier reviews of the tree protection measures are warranted at this time. LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 21 of 25 59 60 4. Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. There are no outstanding conditions of approval that affect the subject property. VI. CONCLUSION Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that LU 13-0025 complies with all applicable criteria and standards or can be made to comply through the imposition of conditions. VII. ACTION TAKEN Approval of LU 13-0025, subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permits the A licant Owner shall: Submit final building plans for review and approval of staff that are the same or substantially similar to the site plan, floor plans, and building elevations illustrated on Exhibits E13 through E16. 2. Submit a boundary survey that is stamped and signed by a registered professional surveyor showing all existing encroachments on the same document, including the location of the west wall of the carport in greater detail. If the survey finds that the wall extends over the property line, the carport shall be shifted to the extent necessary to assure that all portions of the carport are on the applicant's property. 3. Submit approval from the Oswego Lake Corporation authorizing drainage from the proposed additions to be directed to the Oswego Lake. If any onsite infiltration will be proposed, submit a design for the facility to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, 4. A certified arborist shall be required to review the construction plans and prepare a report prescribing appropriate measures to assure the protection of the Japanese Maple and fir tree on the abutting lot to the west during construction. The report shall be submitted with the tree protection application (see item 2 under Code Requirements, below). The arborist shall also be required to be on site during all excavation activities within the driplines of both trees. Submit a Notice of Development Restriction containing the following restriction listed, below, for review and approval of City staff. [Note: staff can provide a template for the notice of development restriction by request.] The dwelling and detached carport on the site received exceptions to the side, rear and Oswego Lake setbacks and lot coverage requirements of R-7.5 zone through the Residential Infill Design Review process and were specifically approved for their design. No external additions or alterations of these structures (including changes to LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 22 of 25 or removal of approved building design features or materials) shall be permitted, including changes during construction, without prior written approval by the City of Lake Oswego, per City of Lake Oswego Planning File No. LU 13-0025. 6. Record the approved Notice of Development Restriction as described in Condition A(5), above, with the Clackamas County Clerk's Office and submit a copy of the recorded document to the City. B. Prior to the Final Building Inspection, the Applicant/Owner shall: 1. Request a final inspection by the Planning staff to assure that the development complies with the approved final plans, per Conditions A(1) and A(2), above. Code Requirements: 1. Expiration of Development Permit: Per LOC 50.07.003.17, the RID approved by this decision shall expire three years following the effective date of the development permit, and can be extended by the City Manager pursuant to the provisions of this section. Tree Protection: Submit a tree protection plan and application in accordance with the arborist recommendations (if required) per LOC 55.08.020 and 55.08.030 for review and approval by staff, including off-site trees that are within the construction zone. The plan shall include: The location of temporary tree protection fencing, consisting of a minimum 6 -foot high cyclone fence secured by steel posts around the tree protection zone, or as recommended by the project arborist and approved by the City. b. A note stating that no fill or compaction shall occur within the critical root zones of any of the trees, or that if fill or compaction is unavoidable, measures will be taken as recommended by a certified arborist to reduce or mitigate the impact of the fill or compaction. The note shall also inform contractors that the project arborist shall be on site and oversee all construction activities within the tree protection zone. c. A note that clearly informs all site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone. The applicant and contractor(s) shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. d. A sign shall be attached to the tree protection fencing which states that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior written approval has been obtained from the City Manager and project arborist. Note• 1. Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Section are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 61 Page 23 of 25 Community Development Code, and related code provisions. The applicant is advised to review plans for compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations that could relate to the development, i.e., Americans with Disabilities Act, Endangered Species Act. City staff may advise the applicants of issues regarding state and federal laws that the City staff member believes would be helpful to the applicants, but any such advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or state law or regulation. PT,eared by: 6' if 6 , ssica Numanoglu Senior Planner Reviewed by: Evan Boone Deputy City Attorney - Approved by: LS. Hamid Pis --As-sis'Cant Planning Director W14:11 -IMI A -D [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] E. GRAPHICS/PLANS Date Date E1. Tax Map E2. Site Survey E3. Site Plan (proposed) E4. Building Elevations (proposed) E5. Floor Plans (proposed) E6. Roof Plan (proposed) E7. Site Plan (existing) E8. Building Elevations (existing) E9. Floor Plans (existing) E10. Roof Plan (existing) E11. Aerial Photograph E12. Photographs of Homes within 200 feet of the Site E13, Revised Site Plan (proposed) E14. Revised Building Elevations (proposed) 62 1I i) - W -3 Date LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 24 of 25 E15. Revised Floor Plans (proposed) E16. Revised Roof Plan (proposed) E17. Revised Site Plan (existing) E18. Revised Building Elevations (existing) E19. Revised Floor Plans (existing) E20. Revised Roof Plan (existing) E21. Boundary Survey, received October 30, 2013 E22. Detail Sketch of the West Carport Wall, received November 6, 2013 E23. Site plans from Building Division Files and Aerial Photographs Showing the Development at 1135, 1159, 1207, 1217 and 1307 Lake Front Road F. WRITTEN MATERIALS F1. Applicant's Narrative F2. Fire Marshal's Memorandum F3. Revised Narrative, received September 23, 2013 G. LETTERS Neither for nor Against (G1-99) None Support (G100-199) G100. Letter from Gerd and Ruth Hoeren, dated August 12, 2013 G101. Email from Jim & Heather Amey, dated October 29, 2013 G102. Letter from Ruth Hoeren, dated October 31, 2013 Opposition (G200+) G200. Letter from Douglas Reiter, dated August 9, 2013 G201. Letter from Ellen (Ede) Schmidt, dated August 11, 2013 G202. Letter with attachments from Ralph Tahran, dated August 14, 2013 G203. Email from Douglas Reiter, dated October 18, 2013 G204. Email from Ede Schmidt, dated November 7, 2013 G205. Letter from Ralph Tahran, dated November 8, 2013 Date of Application Submittal: May 23, 2013 Date Application Determined to be Complete: July 9, 2013 State Mandated 120 -Day Rule: January 21, 2013 LU 13-0025 November 27, 2013 Page 25 of 25 63 64 Tt*4x,,o Map 2 1 E 10 CA SEF MAP 2 IE IOBD471 s /� �/�` CANCELLED ,�.1 LFI ®i G 690 3 540 690 w1110( _„p ' :� 0.`` PART OF TL 340 201 �> ��w. ON 2 IE 10 . 330 g°'m i A w1 1411 ti ]93j 'r _ a -i. ri�s' Rr2M'a R p`[. 9sL • L rp• yr9 3100 �2 t �' jb•�r pse-.s+ `30010,64 °:.. iop X01 j.IL�SSw n� t tee. � \ VF ~' f.. �9I '�9r• }}+. 4100 s, 4 es. ttr 42,1,x, h 140D Sa 1��. f, a Ss�oo ; �. I rt/ 4300 7� k 'oo rye PS. ~ M il2 e:.1 00 i i 4000 ' lea ALBERT �UR>�I 3- �o D.L.C. NO.44 $� _ 1 5 85 an e - z", o 0 67 .LAVE OF IF,. A. CO WED DLG NQ. 45 STREET ET t -"'Vmoo' io sm• S { r. • re o �r p So 00 46001 48001 94001 95001 9600 9760 9600 CA 1444 I i 4 1412 a S °l334 1318 dI 1234 g a 1228 824 11 W 1 I I f W .• r �y. r351 00 510© 50001 4900 I,L 93001- 9200 9100 90b0 8900 1435 - 1411 I 875 I 1315 I 1245 -� 122] 898 ° �d1 gl a 81 1 ;� 14�18 117EXHIBIT E-1 702 LU 13-0025 `s6 ��� g r g . s r 65 i99� CEanri .-nn:h 1 � o n. csnA nshP91' ssi � ISCN, . . ,-,..... ..�_. _ � _ W 66 Q Z W CD W J ~ I_,_1 O o Q U Un EXHIBIT E-2 LU 13-0025 v Q �J W W O EXHIBIT E-2 LU 13-0025 Z Q ui 4 U) r =EXHIBIT -3 25 67 V U u m m OG u8 NMU o GVDH 1NONJ3Ndl � zz� o n � Z Q ui 4 U) r =EXHIBIT -3 25 67 68 o � a go Z O 4 W J W a 0 o: x w a 3�w a� w 8 o � 1a 0 I [7EXHIBIT E-4 U 13-0025 69 V II Mz a 3�w a� w 8 o � 1a 0 I [7EXHIBIT E-4 U 13-0025 69 70 V U e 3 Z r �j W A W 0° 0 2 W r W W N r a W 0 W U) 0 d 0 19 L J J q 0 71 l! U Z r �j W A W 0° 0 2 W r W W N r a W 0 W U) 0 d 0 19 L J J q 0 71 i 41 s 72 w z 0 Q W W C O C ujW x W u W r x cz J Ea c a � a M U N C U�o3 Ce F a.n V N J E i s o G 0 W Q J V Q m W N O a O IL Qg 1 u Ll) X w la �__ I �_ U_ U_ LU Ll) X w la �__ I �_ U_ U_ EXHIBIT E-5 LU 13-0025 73 Lu . ..... .... el)---------------- - . .... ...... af -Y V, Uf . . ...... ... . EXHIBIT E-5 LU 13-0025 73 74 75 R"� Ui- SON I Y I_ a � 75 76 CVOH LNOHzFNVI DLEXHIBIT E-7 U 13-0025 n U O y X z J CL hW G N o K Wto DLEXHIBIT E-7 U 13-0025 n U O y X DLEXHIBIT E-7 U 13-0025 n c� s EXHIBIT E-8 LU 13-0025 77 0 EXHIBIT E-8 LU 13-0025 77 78 - 2\,},%& \Gaut§r - w ! -�- - \ƒ� mLu. 78 LU � � Q d U LLS 7 UJ C7 Q Cn LU T< (5 Lu Ll. - �-_ c, cj EXHIBIT E-9 LU 13-0025 79 80 81 82 84 Owner Name: LOGAN TERRY J & LOGAN CAROL C Owner Addr: 1307 LAKE FRONT RD Phone: City/State/Zip:LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034-4609 Lot 25 . = if, EXHIBIT E-12 LU 13-0025 'L, ci CA -A V- f. 85 e rr EXHIBIT E-12 LU 13-0025 'L, ci CA -A V- f. 85 Owner Name: SCHMIDT ELLEN A Owner Addr: 1237 LAKE FRONT RD Phone: City/State/Zip:LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034-4607 Lot 23 86 Owner Name: REITER DOUGLAS M Owner Addr: 1217 LAKE FRONT RD Phone: City/State/Zip:LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034-4607 Lot 21 87 Owner Name: HOEREN GERD & HOEREN RUTH E Owner Addr: 1207 LAKE FRONT RD Phone: City/State/Zip:LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034-4607 Lot 20 t- ill 88 Owner Name: SACCO RUSSELL N (TE) Owner Addr: 1159 LAKE FRONT RD Phone: City/StatefZip:LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034-4605 Lot 18 t H 89 Chad Fleischman & Traci Ann Parker 1135 Lake Front Road Lake Oswego 97034 Lot 17 90 Lynne & David Boussi 1335 Horseshoe Curve Lake Oswego 97034 Lot 65 91 Ali & Zahra Saalabian 1317 Horseshoe Curve Lake Oswego 97034 Lot 66 92 OWNER INFORMATIO Owner Name: BEESON BRENT R Owner Addr: 1309 HORSESHOE phone: CURV City/State/Zip:LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034-4629 Lot 67 93 Owner Name: ACKERMAN KENNETH J 1301 HORSESHOE Phone: Owner Addr: CURV City/State/Zip:LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034-4629 Lot 67 94 Owner Name: WESLEY PATRICIA E Owner Addr: 1267 MAPLE ST Phone: City/State/Zip:LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034-4729 Lot 68 95 Owner Name: FERRIER CYNTHIA Owner Addr: 1245 MAPLE ST Phone: City/State/Zip:LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034-4729 Lot 68 96 Owner Name: BRENNAN ELIZABETH EATON & BRENNAN T MASON Owner Addr: 1219 MAPLE ST Phone: O'ity/State/Zip:LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034-4729 Lot 69 97 John Benjamin Chessar 1125 Maple Street Lake Oswego 97034 Lot 70 98 Maureen Utz 16042 Cornell Street Lake Oswego 97034 Lot 71 99 100 Q i W F fll avoa iN0dA3Nv7 0 0 z r=o ,o wQ� --:�- I p xxo 5 m •U�om I [W^ �.� a F o Ll 0) J U 7 N 0 0 z r=o ,o wQ� --:�- L) k5H V � p Y 5 = 5 w Z Q J F tl y EXHIBIT E•13 LU 13-0025 101 I p xxo 5 I - I ,w -- 1 L) k5H V � p Y 5 = 5 w Z Q J F tl y EXHIBIT E•13 LU 13-0025 101 I p xxo z pqCv, o L) k5H V � p Y 5 = 5 w Z Q J F tl y EXHIBIT E•13 LU 13-0025 101 102 O A. 1- Q V Q z O P `Q W J W 19 O 2 W I- x x W w Z �d u Oc d C �� n o W o .; u a - > p N � F d K W Q W J W lz O C W I- x x W F z O OC G W _y L O it COL EXHIBIT E-14 LU 13-0025 103 W - k- \( �- 2j2)/{) /[ (} / co %{ ) uj - �_ 104 7 � � LU ■ 0 ■ uj � LU � Q ■ a UA ■ 0 & 0 ■ & \( /[ co \ >f 104 7 � � LU ■ 0 ■ uj � LU � Q ■ a UA ■ 0 & 0 ■ & w Z Q W W cc O F� M W Z 0 F Q W J W 19 0 2 LLIW J J {V 0 105 Q CJ '0 11 0m Z 0 F Q W J W 19 0 2 LLIW J J {V 0 105 106 /( z 0 q 7 w � LU 0! 0 ■ LU I- x LU LU 0 § � LU ■ 0 LU ■ 0 a § � � � §{ 05 ¢ z 0 q 7 w � LU 0! 0 ■ LU I- x LU LU 0 § � LU ■ 0 LU ■ 0 a § � � � §{ 05 fj 107 108 I 'M Z3 LU 10 LU 1 11 1 F--\ i O O W z 06 19 0 0 .j L6 W 0 0 Ju 0, C-14 CL 0 0 L4 ON I ❑ Q ry, z LU z Lu Ln 0 U) 0- w X 0 �-: a- ao U - d LL U) "d c') Z3 z 10 0 TL•J m O �ZF Lu LU z m o �H O O W z 06 19 0 0 .j L6 W 0 0 Ju 0, C-14 CL 0 0 L4 ON I ❑ Q ry, z LU z Lu Ln 0 U) 0- w X 0 �-: a- ao U - d LL U) "d c') - -,I9 1 -1', Ll-- - - - - - A .S-.9 L Z3 z TL•J O �ZF Lu LU z m - -,I9 1 -1', Ll-- - - - - - A .S-.9 L I frL I Q I w co o❑W I > C I �Z I w I wZ WF I I \I I� ---- ( — Y y � S U m m W Q❑ Q W �QQ W m LL Q Q Q of I A �c � z I I frL I Q I w co o❑W I > C I �Z I w I wZ WF I I \I I� ---- ( — Y y � S U m m W Q❑ Q W �QQ W m LL Q Q Q of �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I =EXHIBIT F �c � z any IL �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I =EXHIBIT CIVOb INO2JdEAVI jJ --7 14 110 ET13-0025 1131T E-17 a ull QO)l Z uj 110 ET13-0025 1131T E-17 I- 19 19 O 96 Q u F Q z F yQ w J W O' W I- x x W r z O ac 0 z P 4 x� w� W Z 2K o � = •3 W F s W'O j,CIN O ■ 3 F LU f 4 W a � 4> g d �f w J W _O F2 LU H x W F z O oc 0 z P x w =EXHIBIT v 111 Ni W a ��amcv Lij xN W W W w � Z 112 z O r a J W of O re W I - w ro LU .d B .,[`_\� •°�\®,± 72 U, jui \ \\ z § � » w .j w ■ g ■ w I-. x III w � � � 2 w G ■ �. ■! w§ 113 114 W � 115 116 N Z oM I F =f � � '9 `nen d Hug fl 4' ui m j w 1 116 N Z oM F =f U $Z�o j.o�y0 • '9 `nen d Hug 4' 116 6 L6 C) z z LU IL 117 118 O_ W,x go i z 0. Oz q Wei cwi za oLF zw m zd QzOW S iZ no Oaz ic- n a m c4, I w z Z o za ° Eli �N }' O � a Fw�j is o ° �' wu Fwz U m�N 00. # ,� qq8� c7#5zN % —1 G1 � CI UU � wWF- ' a°a 5o WWW LL. F z a w J U _1 o rn LLL � g ff¢e 3 K �^ ' 'D9or v as 2➢ �� � W � �LJ J LU 11II J i EXHIBIT E-21 LU 13-0025 120 �ti4P� iMq�� w�ao o�eo nle�' oroa iwu� v vi can 3aNIGIM Nb'EE,- ] 3NIVB 3 SINN3Q ��®911VLia 3119 Ndld 3119 - °� L; M ffia; d f 4 €r �� lg v _ _M C EXHIBIT E-23 LU 13-0025 IN 121 6— 122 1 i t 4 'd y V• IN Asa -Pi -vf --__-- 123 �Nd .r 9 m: 123 ■ 12 t -4- - <D cZzl---- 125 126 Narrative for Residential Infill Design Review Applicant: Integrate Architecture & Planning, P.C. Contact: Phil Sydnor ' 1715 N. Terry Street Portland, Oregon 97217 503-312-2561 J J „,.. `i Owner: Sally Caplan and Ken Ackerman 612 Ridgeway Road Lake Osewgo, Oregon 972034 Site Address: 1227 Lake Front Road Lake Osewgo, Oregon 972034 Tax lot. No.: 21EIOCA00400 Parcel No.: 00259927 Year built: 1958 Lot Size: .12 acres (5,227 sf.) Lot coverage: Maximum lot coverage allowed = 35% of site area = .35 x 5,227 = 1,829 sf. (see figure 50.04.001 — height Adjustment for sloping topography and figure 50.04.001-8: height exceptions). Existing lot coverage = 2,003 sq. ft. / 38% (not including carport) or 2,403 sq. ft. / 46% (including carport) Proposed lot coverage = 2,100 sq. ft./ 40% (not including carport) or 2,500 sq. ft. / 47.8% (including carport) Floor area: Maximum floor area allowed = 3,000 sq. ft. + 600 sq. ft. (carport allowance) = 3,600 sf. Existing floor area = 2,667 sq. ft. (existing home) + 400 sq. ft. (existing carport) = 3,067 sf Proposed floor area = 2,667 sf, (existing) + 220 sf. (proposed) + 400 sf. (carport) = 3,287 sf. Zoning: R-7.5 Case Type: Residential Infill Design Review for exceptions to the R7.5 zoning standards Proposal: The property owners hope to provide a number of improvements to the existing home including the following: • Provide a new, raised carport in place of the existing carport, at the same location • Provide a 70 sq. ft. addition for a new front entry on the main level of the home • Provide a new vaulted gable roof addition/ modification at the lakeside over the main floor and back deck. • Provide a new 10'x22' (220 sq. ft.) addition on the lakeside of the lower floor, below the existing main floor deck. • Provide a 3' (66 sq. ft) extension to the main floor deck, toward the lake. EXHIBIT F-1 LU 13-0025 127 Existing Site & Vicinity: The site is approximately 5,227 square feet in area and has an overall slope of 25% between Lake Front Road and the Lake, and contains a single family dwelling residence and detached carport. The carport is approximately 4.5' below the adjacent street while the existing main floor of the residence is approximately 10.5' below the street. The front of the existing carport is 15.5' away from the front property line while the front of the existing home is 30' away from the front property line. Both adjacent neighbors are within 10' of Lake Front road. The existing home also sits much lower than its adjacent neighbors in elevation below the street. The existing home is clad in lap siding and some brick veneer. The existing windows are vinyl and surrounded with white trim. The existing cedar shingle roof is hipped with 2' overhangs on all sides. The existing main entry is recessed from both adjacent front facades by 8' and 20'. The existing roof overhang is continuous over the exterior walkway leading up to the entry. The sidewalk and stair leading down to the main entry from the front of the carport above are lacking character and are in need of repair. The existing carport is also difficult to enter and exit with a vehicle due to the steep slope of the existing driveway. The existing carport roof is also very low and without character due to its float roof. No trees will be impacted on the site. Required Zoning Adjustments: 1 - Maximum lot coverage adjustment: Maximum lot coverage allowed = 35% of site area = .35 x 5,227 = 1,829 sq. ft. (see figure 50.04.001 — height Adjustment for sloping topography and figure 50.04.001-B: height exceptions). Existing lot coverage = 2,003 sq. ft. / 38% (not including carport) or 2,403 sq. ft. / 46% (including carport) Final lot coverage = 2,100 sq. ft./ 40% (not including carport) or 2,500 sq. ft. / 47.8% (including carport) The building coverage standards, together with the height and setback standards control the overall bulk of structures. They are intended to assure that taller buildings will not have such a large footprint that their total bulk will overwhelm adjacent houses. Additionally, the standards help define the character of the different zones by limiting the amount of buildings allowed on a site. The proposal being requested is limited to adding 100 square feet in combined area. A new front entry is necessary to bring more significance to the front of the home and make the house more welcoming from the street. The existing home and in particular, its entry, has no engagement with the street or surrounding area due to the site's downward slope from Lakefront Road, the existing hipped roof, and recessed entry. Bringing the entry forward and proud of one of the adjacent facades, provides for a more noticeable and engaging front elevation. The new entry will also help in making the scale of the house more appropriate with the surrounding neighborhood. It should also be noted the footprint of the proposed entry addition is contained below the existing roof. The proposed back deck addition is slight in total area, just 70 sq. ft. The railing to be installed will be a steel cable railing system to provide maximum transparency. Below the existing main floor deck, a lower floor addition is added to the home, which does not impact the building coverage total due to being located below the existing raised, main floor deck. However, the deck extension helps provide an overhang for protection from weather for the addition below. The deck addition is 8' above the yard below. 2 — Side yard setback adjustment — for the carport: Minimum side yard setback for portions of structures < or equal to 18' in height — 5' min, total combined 15' Minimum side yard setback for portions of structures > or equal to 18' in height = 10' An adjustment is required to the side yard setback from 5' to 0' to accommodate the new carport roof. The existing east side of the carport is a concrete wall 8'-4" in height and on the existing west property line, see drawing 1 on sheet A3.1. The top of the existing flat carport roof is also at this height and ledgered off of the concrete wall. The existing floor of the carport is to be raised 2' to allow easier access from Lakefront road which 128 is approximately 17' away from and 4.5' above the carport, resulting in a reduction in driveway slope from 26.5% to 8.5%. The existing carport roof must be replaced with a raised gable roof with a pitch to match the roof pitch of the existing home. The existing concrete wall shall remain to accommodate the new roof. The new carport roof must remain in the same location due to the existing driveway location, the close proximity of the existing primary residence, and the physical limitations of the steeply sloping site. It should also be noted that an adjustment to the front yard setback is not required. Front yard setback averaging, section 50.04.003.3 of the Community Development Code applies to the front yard due to close distance of the adjacent neighbors to the street. Both adjacent homes are within 10' of the front property line. Furthermore, the house to the west has a carport with little to no distance between it and the front property line. The new gable roof provides a more appropriate shape which will compliment the home, fit in better with the neighborhood, and have no adverse effects on the adjacent neighbor — due to the neighboring house's raised windows which will be unaffected by the new pitched roof. Furthermore, the vaulted gable roof provides more transparency and openness when looking though it from the street. The width and depth of the new roof shall match the existing carport roof. 3 — Side yard setback adjustment, rear yard setback adjustment, and Oswego Lake setback adjustment — for the lower floor addition, deck extension, and vaulted gable roof modification: Minimum rear yard setback = 30' Minimum rear yard setback for property lines abutting Oswego Lake = 25. The existing home varies in distance to the rear property line from 10' at the NE corner to 13' at the NW corner. The back west corner and existing main floor deck are 6'-4" from the west, side, property line. The total remaining side yard (both side yards combined) is 10', the total allowed per 50.04.001 of the CDC is 15'. Therefore a reduction in combined side yard setback to 10' is required. The 220 sq. ft. lower floor addition, 3' deep deck extension above, and new vaulted gable roof addition/ modification all also encroach into the rear setback requirement of 25' along the Lake. The setback adjustment therefore needs to be decreased from 25' to 9'-9" (see sheet A1,1 for the dimension from the NE corner of the deck extension to the rear property line). Due to house's location and configuration, the reduction in rear yard and side yard setbacks are unavoidable. The proposed lower floor addition is below the existing main floor deck and therefore has no impact to the surrounding neighbors. The deck extension helps provide an overhang for protection from weather for the addition below. As indicated previously, a steel cable railing system shall be installed to maintain transparency. The existing flat roof above the deck is to be replaced with the gable roof addition resulting in no impact to the surrounding neighbors. Furthermore, the overall height of the new gable roof has been laid out to not exceed 18' in height at or closer than 10' to the side property lines. This not only meets the requirements of the CDC but also prevents the home from crowding its lot and having a potentially negative impact on the adjacent neighbors. The proposed vaulted gable roof addition provides a look which blends in nicely with other surrounding homes on the lake. It makes a desirable visual link between surrounding buildings by repeating or incorporating similar ridge lines, eaves, window, and door openings. Additional Relevant Criteria: Flood Management Area The site is located in the flood management area where the base flood elevation is 107' on vertical datum NAVD-88. The existing lower floor of the home is at an elevation of 1.09.67. All new construction is above the base flood elevation. Stormwater Management All stormwater management shall be handled on site as required per 50.06.006 of the CDC. Downspouts and storm lines shall daylight onto the front and rear yards, away from neighbors, where adequate ground cover and shrubs shall be provided. Gutters along with downspouts and concealed storm lines shall be provided at the carport to ensure all stormwater from the roof remains on site and well away from the adjacent neighbors. A drywell shall be installed if required to handle emergency overflow in the event of a 10 year or 50 year storm. 129 Conclusions: The proposed improvements to the home as described above create a more compatible and positive relationship between the resulting dwelling and the surrounding neighborhood in terms of 1) size of the dwelling; 2) relationship to the street; and 3) relationship to the neighbors. This occurs as follows: • The new gable roof modifications cause the house to address the street and provide a welcoming entry. The current hipped roofs do not address the street at all and provide only a dark and unwelcoming entry. • The existing hipped roofs cause the existing home to appear that much more lower down and smaller in scale to the surrounding homes. The added floor area and increased areas of roof and volume result in a house which appears sit higher up and have more substantiality. The surrounding homes sit much higher on their sites and closer to street level. Therefore the overall scale and elevation of the resulting home shall be in better proportion to the surrounding structures. • The pitch of new roof of the carport closely considers the window heights of the adjacent neighbor to the west. The view out of those raised windows is not impacted, as the angle of the proposed roof remains below the field of vision — upward toward the sky. • The location of the lower floor addition below the existing main floor deck maintains the same level of privacy with the neighbor to the west. The proposed deck extension and roof modification above also have minimal impact to the adjacent neighbor. Open yard and a large Fir tree are all that is in close proximity to the existing deck and proposed extension. • The proposed roof design closely considers the adjacent neighbors and causes no negative impact. The increases in roof heights caused by the new gable roof modifications are contained toward the middle of the home's roof. This allows for the side eave heights to remain where they currently are and not overwhelm or crowd the side neighbors. Furthermore both adjacent homes are at a higher elevation and remain higher than the new roofs. • See also the attached aerial photo which clearly shows the close proximity of all homes to Lakefront Road within 200' of the site. The proposed zoning adjustments allow for design modifications which allow for the residence to have a closer relationship to the street as well. The applicant has demonstrated the adjustments to maximum building coverage, side yard setback at the carport, and rear yard setback meet all of the applicable criteria. As proposed, the requested adjustments will result in development that meets the intended purpose of the zoning code, and that will not detract from its appearance or livability of the surrounding residential area because of its minimal amount of building coverage being added and new/ replacement construction occurring within or close to the existing footprint for both the home and carport. The adjustment will result in a development that is similar to what historically existed on the subject property — which is a deck on the lakeside of the home and a carport on the street side, but with an overall look and scale which is more appropriate for the neighborhood. 130 Fire Marshal's Office P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503 635-0275 Zoutendijk@ci.oswego.or.us To: Jessica Numanoglu, Senior Planner From: Gert Zoutendijk, Deputy Fire Marshal Date: December 21, 2012 Subject: PA 12-0078, 1227 Lake Front Rd Plans Received Date: December 17, 2012 ACCESS Access is adequate for emergency vehicles. WATER FLOW FOR FIRE- PROTECTION Hydrant location and water flow for fire protection are adequate for a home up to 4,800 square feet including all levels and any attached garage. If the home will be larger than 4,800 square feet, applicant could provide an alternate method such as residential fire sprinklers. EXHIBIT F-2 LU 13-0025 131 132 Narrative for Residential Infill Design Review Applicant: Integrate Architecture & Planning, P.C. Contact: Phil Sydnor 1715 N. Terry Street Portland, Oregon 97217 503-312-2561 Owner: Sally Caplan and Ken Ackerman 612 Ridgeway Road Lake Osewgo, Oregon 972034 Site Address: 1227 Lake Front Road Lake Osewgo, Oregon 972034 Tax lot No.: 21 E l OCA00400 Parcel No.: 00259927 Year built: 1958 Lot Size: .12 acres (5,227 sf.) Lot coverage: Maximum lot coverage allowed = 35% of site area = .35 x 5,227 = 1,829 sf. (see figure 50.04,001 --- height Adjustment for sloping topography and figure 50.04.001-B: height exceptions). Existing lot coverage = 2,003 sq. ft. / 38% (not including carport) or 2,403 sq. ft. / 46% (including carport) Proposed lot coverage _ 2,100 sq. ft./ 40% (not including carport) or 2,500 sq. ft. / 47.8% (including carport) Floor area: Maximum floor area allowed = 3,000 sq. ft. + 600 sq. ft. (carport allowance) = 3,600 sf. Existing floor area = 2,667 sq. ft. (existing home) + 400 sq. ft. (existing carport) = 3,067 sf. Proposed floor area = 2,667 sf. (existing) + 220 sf. (proposed) + 400 sf. (carport) = 3,2$7 sf. Zoning: R-7.5 Case Type: Residential Infill Design Review for exceptions to the R7.5 zoning standards Proposal: The property owners hope to provide a number of improvements to the existing home including the following: • Provide a new, raised carport in place of the existing carport, at the same location • Provide a 70 sq, ft. addition for a new front entry on the main level of the home • Replace the existing nonconforming, flat, metal framed, fiberglass deck roof, with a new vaulted gable roof deck which meets the requirements of 50.01.006. I.C. The overall footprint for the replacement deck roof shall not exceed that of the existing deck roof. • Provide a new 10'x22' (220 sq. ft.) addition on the lakeside of the lower floor, below the existing main floor deck. • Provide a 3' (66 sq. ft) extension to the main floor deck, toward the lake. EXHIBIT F-3 LU 13-0025 1w.. 133 Existing Site & Vicinity: The site is approximately 5,227 square feet in area and has an overall slope of 25% between Lake Front Road and the Lake, and contains a single family dwelling residence and detached carport. The carport is approximately 4.5' below the adjacent street while the existing main floor of the residence is approximately 10.5' below the street. The front of the existing carport is 15.5' away from the front property line while the front of the existing home is 30' away from the front property line. Both adjacent neighbors are within 10' of Lake Front road. The existing home also sits much lower than its adjacent neighbors in elevation below the street. The existing home is clad in lap siding and some brick veneer. The existing windows are vinyl and surrounded with white trim. The existing cedar shingle roof is hipped with 2' overhangs on all sides. The existing main entry is recessed from both adjacent front facades by 8' and 20'. The existing roof overhang is continuous over the exterior walkway leading up to the entry. The sidewalk and stair leading down to the main entry from the front of the carport above are lacking character and are in need of repair. The existing carport is also difficult to enter and exit with a vehicle due to the steep slope of the existing driveway, The existing carport roof is also very low and without character due to its float roof. No trees will be impacted on the site. Required Zoning Adjustments: 1 - Maximum lot coverage adjustment: Maximum lot coverage allowed = 35% of site area =.35 x 5,227 = 1,829 sq. ft. (see figure 50.04.001 — height Adjustment for sloping topography and figure 50.04.001-B: height exceptions). Existing lot coverage = 2,003 sq. ft. / 38% (not including carport) or 2,403 sq. ft. / 46% (including carport) Final lot coverage = 2,100 sq. ft./ 40% (not including carport) or 2,500 sq. ft. / 47.8% (including carport) The building coverage standards, together with the height and setback standards control the overall bulk of structures. They are intended to assure that taller buildings will not have such a large footprint that their total bulk will overwhelm adjacent houses. Additionally, the standards help define the character of the different zones by limiting the amount of buildings allowed on a site. The proposal being requested is limited to adding 100 square feet in combined area. A new front entry is necessary to bring more significance to the front of the home and make the house more welcoming from the street. The existing home and in particular, its entry, has no engagement with the street or surrounding area due to the site's downward slope from Lakefront Road, the existing hipped roof, and recessed entry. Bringing the entry forward and proud of one of the adjacent facades, provides for a more noticeable and engaging front elevation. The new entry will also help in making the scale of the house more appropriate with the surrounding neighborhood. It should also be noted the footprint of the proposed entry addition is contained below the existing roof. The proposed back deck addition is slight in total area, just 70 sq. ft. The railing to be installed will be a steel cable railing system to provide maximum transparency. Below the existing main floor deck, a lower floor addition is added to the home, which does not impact the building coverage total due to being located below the existing raised, main floor deck. However, the deck extension helps provide an overhang for protection from weather for the addition below. The deck addition is 8' above the yard below. 2 — Side yard setback adjustment — for the carport: Minimum side yard setback for portions of structures < or equal to 18' in height = 5' min, total combined 15' Minimum side yard setback for portions of structures � or equal to 18' in height = 10' An adjustment is required to the side yard setback from 5' to 0' to accommodate the new carport roof. The existing east side of the carport is a concrete wall 8'-4" in height and on the existing west property line, see drawing 1 on sheet A3.1. The top of the existing flat carport roof is also at this height and ledgered off of the concrete wall. The existing floor of the carport is to be raised 2' to allow easier access from Lakefront road which 134 is approximately 17' away from and 4.5' above the carport, resulting in a reduction in driveway slope from 26.5% to 8.5%. The existing carport roof must be replaced with a raised gable roof with a pitch to match the roof pitch of the existing home. The existing concrete wall shall remain to accommodate the new roof. The new carport roof must remain in the same location due to the existing driveway location, the close proximity of the existing primary residence, and the physical limitations of the steeply sloping site. It should also be noted that an adjustment to the front yard setback is not required. Front yard setback averaging, section 50.04.003.3 of the Community Development Code applies to the front yard due to close distance of the adjacent neighbors to the street. Both adjacent homes are within 10' of the front property line. Furthermore, the house to the west has a carport with little to no distance between it and the front property line. The new gable roof provides a more appropriate shape which will compliment the home, fit in better with the neighborhood, and have no adverse effects on the adjacent neighbor — due to the neighboring house's raised windows which will be unaffected by the new pitched roof. Furthermore, the vaulted gable roof provides more transparency and openness when looking though it from the street. The width and depth of the new roof shall match the existing carport roof. 3 — Side yard setback adjustment, rear yard setback adjustment, and Oswego Lake setback adjustment — for the lower floor addition, deck extension, and roof deck replacement: Minimum rear yard setback = 30' Minimum rear yard setback for property lines abutting Oswego Lake = 25'. The existing home varies in distance to the rear property line from 10' at the NE corner to 13' at the NW corner. The back west corner and existing main floor deck are 6'-4" from the west, side, property line. The total remaining side yard (both side yards combined) is 10', the total allowed per 50.04.001 of the CDC is 15'. Therefore a redaction in combined side yard setback to 10' is required. The 220 sq. ft. lower floor addition, 3' deep deck extension above, and new vaulted gable roof addition/ modification all also encroach into the rear setback requirement of 25' along the Lake. The setback adjustment therefore needs to be decreased from 25' to 9'-9" (see sheet Al. I for the dimension from the NE corner of the deck extension to the rear property line). Due to house's location and configuration, the reduction in rear yard and side yard setbacks are unavoidable. The proposed lower floor addition is below the existing main floor deck and therefore has no impact to the surrounding neighbors. The deck extension helps provide an overhang for protection from weather for the addition below. As indicated previously, a steel cable railing system shall be installed to maintain transparency. "I'he existing flat roof above the deck is to be replaced with the gable roof addition resulting in no impact to the surrounding neighbors. Furthermore, the overall height of the new gable roof has been laid out to not exceed 18' in height at or closer than 10' to the side property lines. This not only meets the requirements of the CDC but also prevents the home from crowding its lot and having a potentially negative impact on the adjacent neighbors. The proposed vaulted gable roof which replaces the existing flat, metal framed, fiberglass roof over the back deck provides a look which blends in nicely with other surrounding homes on the lake. It makes a desirable visual link between surrounding buildings by repeating or incorporating similar ridge lines, eaves, window, and door openings. The overall change in height is less than 6' and the modification is allowed per 50.01.006. LC of the Community Development Code. Additional Relevant Criteria: Flood Management Area The site is located in the flood management area where the base flood elevation is 107' on vertical datum NAVD-88. The existing lower floor of the home is at an elevation of 109.67'. All new construction is above the base flood elevation. Stormwater Management All stormwater management shall be handled on site as required per 50.06.006 of the CDC. Downspouts and storm lines shall daylight onto the front and rear yards, away from neighbors, where adequate ground cover and shrubs shall be provided. Gutters along with downspouts and concealed storm lines shall be provided at the 135 carport to ensure all stormwater from the roof remains on site and well away from the adjacent neighbors. A drywell shall he installed if required to handle emergency overflow in the event of a 10 year or 50 year storm. Conclusions: The proposed improvements to the home as described above create a more compatible and positive relationship between the resulting dwelling and the surrounding neighborhood in terms of 1) size of the dwelling; 2) relationship to the street; and 3) relationship to the neighbors. This occurs as follows: • The new gable roof modifications cause the house to address the street and provide a welcoming entry. The current hipped roofs do not address the street at all and provide only a dark and unwelcoming entry. • The existing hipped roofs cause the existing home to appear that much more lower down and smaller in scale to the surrounding homes. The added floor area and increased areas of roof and volume result in a house which appears sit higher up and have more substantiality. The surrounding homes sit much higher on their sites and closer to street levet. Therefore the overall scale and elevation of the resulting home shall be in better proportion to the surrounding structures. • The pitch of new roof of the carport closely considers the window heights of the adjacent neighbor to the west. The view out of those raised windows is not impacted, as the angle of the proposed roof remains below the field of vision -- upward toward the sky. • The location of the lower floor addition below the existing main floor deck maintains the same level of privacy with the neighbor to the west. The proposed deck extension and roof modification above also have minimal impact to the adjacent neighbor, especially when considering the large trees directly adjacent on the neighbor's property to the east. Open yard and a large Fir tree are all that is in close proximity to the existing deck and proposed extension. • All proposed roof modifications at the primary residence are permitted by the Community Development Code. The new gable roof above the back deck does extend into the setbacks, however, the roof it is replacing did as well. The replacement deck roof meets the requirements of 50.01.006. LC of the CDC and is therefore permittable. • See also the attached aerial photo which clearly shows the close proximity of all homes to Lakefront Road within 200' of the site. The proposed zoning adjustments allow for design modifications which allow for the residence to have a closer relationship to the street as well. The applicant has demonstrated the adjustments to maximum building coverage, side yard setback at the carport, and rear yard setback meet all of the applicable criteria. As proposed, the requested adjustments will result in development that meets the intended purpose of the zoning code, and that will not detract from its appearance or livability of the surrounding residential area because of its minimal amount of building coverage being added and new/ replacement construction occurring within or close to the existing footprint for both the home and carport. The adjustment will result in a development that is similar to what historically existed on the subject property — which is a deck on the lakeside of the home and a carport on the street side, but with an overall look and scale which is more appropriate for the neighborhood. 136 f-i"CEIVED August 12, 2013 AUG I )3 To: Planning and Building Services Department City ott 3, CGC1'IF13uniii,1 !� $4 c^.;{ +.'� rlt c - RE: RE: 1227 Lake Front Road Residential Infill Design Review From: Gerd and Ruth Hoeren, owners of 1207 Lake Front Road We are in strong favor of approving the exceptions requested. We have lived 2 houses down from 1227 for over 30 years and have seen a great deal of renovation on the older homes on this street. I know the house at 1227 well inside and out having been friends with the previous owners. The requests Sally Caplan has submitted are needed improvements. 1) The side yard setback for the detached carport is not a decrease over its present site. The requested new carport would be no closer to the side line than the existing carport. It is a request because the rules have changed since the carport was build years ago. But the new carport, if approved, would be exactly where the existing carport is now. 2)Again the request is to make legal the existing rear yard setback nearest the street. That bedroom wall was approved years ago when it was built. 3) Oswego Lake setback- the new owner is only asking for an additional 3 feet on the deck in back of half of the house, Visually, this does not block either neighbor's view since it is still well back from the lake edge and there are no trees along either side yard. In contrast, the owner could legally plant a row of trees without asking for a permit and it would block the view far more. 4) Decrease the combined 15 foot side yard to 11"10". This house is built on a 50 foot wide lot as are many on this street and other old streets along the lake. That maximizes the number of people who are lucky enough to live on the lake. However, It is hard to contain a house in a 35 feet width on a narrow, hilly lot. Very few houses on this street have a 15 foot combined side yard. The houses were not originally planned for that and would require a complete tear down to achieve that. 5) Increase the maximum lot coverage - More accurately, this request is to keep the existing lot coverage - but enclose the open entry way in the middle of the lot and raise it 30 inches. This is a very hilly front yard and entrance. Raising the entry 30 inches and enclosing it and raising the driveway in its existing location and size would greatly improve access. As the driveway is now, it is very steep and hazardous on icy mornings. Raising the driveway would help make it less steep and easier to see out onto the street and around the curve when driving from the driveway onto the street. 137 Numano lu, Jessica From: Dillinger, Barbara Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 7:46 AM To: Numanoglu, Jessica Cc: Reynolds, Janice Subject: FW: 1227 Lake Front Road; Application Number LU -13-0025 From: Jim Amey [mailto:iamey@ameyco.com] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 4:10 PM To: Dillinger, Barbara Subject: FW: 1227 Lake Front Road; Application Number LU -13-0025 Planning & Building Services Department, We would like to express our support and appreciation for the proposed construction at the subject property. The design and improvements desired by Ms. Caplan and Mr. Ackerman will be a tremendous upgrade to a property that sorely needs attention. We believe homes of this age do need to be improved keeping the values up for the City of Lake Oswego. When considering the application please think of all the properties in the vicinity of 1227 Lake Front Road and the beauty and increased value this project will create. Best Regards, Jim & Heather Amey 1301 Horseshoe Curve Lake Oswego, OR 97034 EXHIBIT G-101 LU 13-0025 1 138 To: Planning and Building Services October 31, 2013 From: Ruth Hoeren 1207 Lakefront Rd. RECEIVED RE: File No. LU 13-0025 Nov o ,t My comments as a neighbor QtY 0f Unk ,I -v ego Included in the revised city review report, you will find my previous lette 4LI9,01641 12, 2013 in which I strongly recommended approving the remodeling plans for 1227 Lakefront Rd. I am happy that the city recommends approving these plans. I was upset to read the letters from two neighbors who are still trying to block this remodel. Therefore, I am writing a follow up letter again urging the city to approve these very reasonable improvements. The house at #1227 is at least 50, maybe over 60 years old, and is falling into decline. It has clear problems which need improvement. Here is additional information I did not spell out clearly in my first letter. It is in response to the comments by Doug Reiter and Ede Schmidt, neighbors opposed to the remodeling. I consider their claims to be very biased, conveniently leaving out information about the history of improvements at their own homes. I have lived next door since 1979 and have seen their improvements with my own eyes. Doug has lived next to me for 19 years, and I like him. But he is not looking at all the facts, and it is not fair to Sally's review process. First, I will respond to the letter from Doug Reiter at house #1217. Doug's comment in his letter to the city states, "My expectation is the city will carefully review all proposed variances and act within the strict confines of the rules and regulations, including consent of neighbors." If the city had acted within the strict confines of the rules in 1985 and not granted 4 variances to the previous owner of his house, Doug would not have a garage or even a carport. Doug has lived in that house for only 20 years. He bought his house after the garage was built and is forgetting that if there were no variances, his house could not have a garage and would be much worth less. I have lived next door for 34 years and saw what went on when his garage was built. His house in 1984 had no garage, no carport and less street parking. Doug is not aware of the difficulty in getting approval to build his garage, much of it standing in the air so that it would be street level and not a steep slope as the proposed changes he is contesting at his neighbor's. Sally Caplan will still have a steep driveway even if her proposed remodeling is approved, but less steep than it is now. It is dangerous to walk down her driveway when it is wet from rain. I was good friends with Bill and Gloria Wetmore when they lived in Sally's house my first 30some years here and know from the times I walked down to their front door in the rain. The variances approved around 1985 at Doug's property now give him a street level, enclosed garage, not a carport. He EXHIBIT GA02 LU 13-0025 ��„� 139 should be grateful Sally is only asking for a carport and still much lower and farther from the street. Doug's garage with the variances is only 8 feet from the street. It is only 6 feet from the side property line next to the house he is contesting. His high stairs looking into the neighbor's master bedroom are right on the property line. Also, it is street level and required much more of a height change. The neighbors who lived in 1227 for over 40 years, Bill and Gloria Wetmore, told me they did not like the plans for building the garage Doug now has. Previous to his garage, no one could look into their master bedroom. With the raised steps from garage down to house, they knew people would be able to see into their bedroom in the future. In spite of that, they did not contest the 4 variances for the garage at Doug's house. Doug was not the owner at the time so is unaware of the unfairness of him now contesting the very minor remodeling at house # 1227. But he is very much the beneficiary of the previous owner of Sally's house being fair and unbiased at the time his garage was approved. They could have written to the city, "His steps will look into our bedroom." Instead, they said, "The neighbors need a garage." They put the good of the neighborhood first and did not send a letter contesting the garage Doug now has. Ede Schmidt at 1237 Lakefront Road has a similar story which she is forgetting. Less than 20 years ago, Ede built a carport next to the street and next to the neighbor she is now contesting. Ede's house previously had no carport or garage. If she applied for city approval, which I do not remember either way, she would have required variances. Also, she would have been required to request neighbor approval. Her carport is only 6 feet from the street and is only 2 feet from Sally Caplan's property line. Again, Sally's previous owner did not contest. Ede could not have built a carport in that very small front yard without multiple variances. That is why I find it ridiculous that Doug and Ede are contesting these minor remodeling changes which mostly are directly on top of existing structures and setbacks. Both Doug and Ede needed variances to build their garage and carport. The neighbor who lived in Sally Caplan's house at the time acted fairly and did not contest those plans even though the Doug's garage plan was clearly unfavorable to them. If you are not totally convinced that Sally's remodeling plans are reasonable, take this letter to her driveway and look again. Drive down our street and you will see that many houses cover 40% or more of the lot. Sally's, Doug's and Ede's lots and many others are only 50 feet wide, but are taxed and valued at over a million dollars. Longtime existing houses on such small, expensive, lakeside lots need occasional variances to maintain their value. Otherwise, they fall into decline and are a detriment to the neighborhood. Sally Caplan's requests are reasonable. Please approve her permits. Ruth Hoeren 140 ExFCUTIVE SEARCH • INTERIM MANAGEMENT SERVICFS • CONSULFANCY August 9, 2013 Jessica Numanoglu, Senior Planner City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services 380 A Avenue PV ',ox 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear Jessica: I am the owner of record of 1217 Lake Front Road. Sally Caplan purchased 1227 Lake Front Rd about 1 year ago. That property is on the left of mine facing the lake. l am aware Ms. Caplan, and her partner, Ken Ackerman, have filed plans with the city seeking variances of code to expand their improvements, and have not received notification from the city of said requests. I am concerned that the planned renovations will impede the view as provided in the setbacks afforded me, which would adversely affect the value of my property. I am also concerned about the owner's intent, and process. I have been in contact with the neighbors on the other side of Caplan, (Ede Schmidt 8t Tom Weber) and Jeff Ward, Lake Mgr, Lake Corp. There is much confusion and concern. My expectation is the city will carefully review all proposed variances and act within the strict confines of the rules and regulations, including consent of neighbors. I have retained the services of Ralph Tahran to represent me in this matter, who will be filing documents in advance of the August 16 deadline. Please feel free to contact me by email, phone, or mail. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. Befit, ,.. z Douglas Reiter Contact Info: PH 617-997-7067 RECEIVED Fax 781-740-7279 Address: Douglas Reiter AUG 1 2 2013 PO Box 721 E of Lake Hingham, MA 02043 9�itrvsmEeni4u t`i;^.hc":=^.crs� rlrrtt PO Box 721 • Hingham, MA 02043 • P 781-740-7277 • F 781-740-i EXHIBIT G-200 LU 13-0025 www.reiterco.com 141 142 August 11, 2013 Ms. Jessica Numanoglu REED Senior Planner Planning & Building Services City of Lake Oswego ,AUG -1 3 20.13 380 A Avenue City 0f I alko CDs;,;,, Post office Sox 369 "" Lake Oswego, OR 97034 !:®trt,i�:'�aii1 Uepl.. 57 Dear Ms Numanoglu,, My name is Ellen (Ede) Schmidt and I am the owner of record of 1237 Lake Front Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon. My residence abuts the east side of the residence owned by Sally Caplan at 1227 Lake Front Road. Sally Caplan and Ken Ackerman have filed remodeling plans with the City of Lake Oswego Planning & services Department seeking several variances of the existing City Building Codes or Zoning Ordinances. I want to go record stating that at this time I do not approve of the requested variances. The variances requested will have a significant impact on my property value. I am also concerned with the owner's intent and process followed to date. Doug Reiter, Caplan's neighbor to the right as you look at the lake, has been in contact with me, Tom Weber and Jeff Ward, General Manager of the Lake Corporation. I have retained Ralph Tahran, Architect, who be filing the appropriate documents in advance of the August 16 deadline stating my concerns regarding the variances requested by Sally Caplan. My expectations are that the City of Lake Oswego Planning Staff will carefully review all proposed variances and act within the strict confines of all Building Codes Rules and Regulations including the required consent of both of Sally Caplan's immediate neighbors. You may contact me via email (�a allaer c ),ir1t@ ��s _�� gg- fl, home telephone (503-636- 5758) or by USPS. m N m _ f Thank you in advance for reviewing my concerns. Sincere) Ellen (Ede) Schmidt 1237 Lake Front Road Lake Oswego, OR 97034 EXHIBIT G-201 LU 13-0025 143 144 August 14, 2013 Jessica Numanoglu, Senior Planner City of Lake Oswego Planning Dept. P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 E-mail: In 4ipgnpfiu a?oswe��.� UG 201 ilw RE: RID Application: LU13-0025,1227 Lake Front Road, Tax Lot 400, 21E 10 CA Dear Jessica, I have been retained by the two neighbors, Ellen (Ede) Schmidt, 1237 Lake Front Road and Doug Reiter, 1217 Lake Front Road, on each side of the LU13-0025 RID Application to study and offer comments on the proposed design and improvements in relation to the existing code requirements and the "burden of proof' requirements for a 'RID Review" to propose designs that do not meet "zone standards," but would meet their intent in a way that is different from, but "equal to or better than" what the Code permits. From our reviews of the documents submitted, we have a number of questions, concerns, and do not believe the application offers a design that is "equal to or better than" what the Code would require for the protection of the neighbors views, privacy and property values, and want to register our concerns with this letter. Our basic concerns are outlined and described as follows in this letter and "marked up" drawings. 1.) BOUNDARY SURVEY The "survey" looks like an "existing conditions" map, not necessarily a "boundary survey."In order to establish the property lines and corners, a boundary survey is critical in old established neighborhoods, like this, where many improvements were built prior to the existence of any code requirements. Most critical on the subject property is the exact location of the existing "CMU retaining wall" along the west property line. The "survey" shows "top and bottom" of "retaining wall" elevation shots, but does not show the exact location of the wall in relation to the property line. A "CMU retaining wail" is usually a minimum of 8" thick. Is the wall thickness totally on the subject property as shown on Architectural drawings A0.1, A1.1, A0.2, A2.1, A2.2, A0.3, A3.1, and A3.3? Drawing 1, on sheet A3.3 shows the "new" raised, carport gable roof to be "bearing" directly on the "existing CMU wall," so the exact wall location needs to be confirmed by "survey" to know exactly where the wall is in relation to the west property line. 2.) CARPORT DESIGN/EXISTING JAPANESE MAPLE TREE, 49_"CIRCUMFERENCE, AT SW CORNER OF CARPORT. The carport is proposed to be re -built at a "raised grade" that calls for 24" of "compacted gravel fill" (SHT A3.3), we also assume that the driveway will also be compacted fill since the intent is to "lessen the driveway grade." The concern is that there is an existing specimen 49" TAHRAN ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING LLC EXHIBIT G-202 2333 Sim STEPHENSON ST.,PORTLAND,OR.97: i_U 13-0025 1 ,,g «, e. e S 145 circumference Japanese maple tree that is only approximately 12" from the existing front corner wall of the existing carport. The tree gets excellent care, most recently, last year and the year before, professional licensed arborists from Collier Tree Care, trimmed and limbed as much as possible without damaging the tree. The arborist said that was as much trimming as could be done. This spectacular tree is an important part of the streetscape. Normally, it is not possible to "fill," especially "compacted fill" this close to the trunk without damaging the tree. We expect the applicant will be required to hire a professional arborist to assess the situation and outline measures to guarantee that there will be no damage to the tree with the construction. The analysis and reviews need to be done at this time, during review of the application, to see if this is feasible. The other tree of concern that could be damaged is a large existing 120" circumference fir tree that is 15" from the west property line. This tree also needs to be assessed by the consulting arborist. The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that there will be no damage caused by the proposed project to adjoining properties, especially when proposing construction that is an "exception" to current code requirements. 3.) REAR DECK EXTENSIONMEW GABLE ROOF OVER REAR DECK. The current residence has a rear yard setback that varies from approximately 12 feet to 15.5 feet from the rear property line where the current code requires a 30 foot setback, so 14.5 feet to 18 feet of existing structure encroaches into the required setback, eliminating that area from the adjoining neighbors view enjoyment. (See "highlighted" survey sheet.) Any further encroachment and diminishing of views to the east and west is absolutely unacceptable to the immediately adjoining neighbors. Any further encroachment cannot meet the RID test of proposing something that is "equal to or better than what is allowed by Code." It is true that the "rear deck extension" is "only 3 feet," but that is 3 feet added to the existing 14.5 feet that intrudes into the required 30 -foot rear yard setback. It is not "equal to or better than" what the Code requires. The "new gable root' over the rear deck proposes a roof height that is higher than the existing "hipped roof' portions over the existing living room and dining room. This area is already in the required rear yard setback and is "nonconforming" at any height over 30" off the ground. It is not acceptable to the adjoining neighbors to have an addition in this area that is higher than the existing "nonconforming" structure that will further diminish and impede views, from their properties. The current ridge height over the applicant's living room is 1.30.45, the proposed ridge height of the "new gable" is 133.45; 3 feet higher. The neighboring residence to the west (Schmidt residence) has a main floor level elevation of 127.10, with a "sitting" eye level view line of 130.10 and a "standing" eye level view line to the east of 132.10. The Schmidt neighbor currently has a view over the existing "hip roof' (elevation 130.45) even though it currently intrudes into the required rear yard setback. The proposed "gable roof" at elevation 133.45 eliminates the existing view. The neighbor to the west would be looking directly into the midpoint of the new gable roof as proposed. The existing "flat roof" over the existing deck is at elevation 125.95'allows viewing over the existing roof, a much more acceptable situation, still "nonconforming," but it is existing. The neighbor to the east would be subjected to a structure 3' higher than the existing "nonconforming" structure. The proposed new gable is not "equal to or better than" what the Code requires as it eliminates and impedes existing views that the neighboring properties are used to and expect when construction conforms to current code requirements. Residents, rightly so, expect that current codes will be met and not be 146 compromised unless the applicant meets the RID tests of °`equal to or better than" existing codes. The current proposal only "increases" the "nonconforming construction" and cannot be "equal to or better than", by taking away neighbors views and open areas that are protected and required by the Codes. 4.) FILL IN LOWER LEVEL DECK EXPAND FAMILY ROOM 220 SQ. FT. ADDITION), This request may be the least disruptive to the neighboring properties as it is "enclosing an existing deck space". The deck space, however, will be enclosing an "existing open area to the neighbor to the west, placing another solid wall 6'4" from the applicant's west property line. The neighbor to the west currently enjoys a view through the "open deck area" from her yard. The proposed 220 square foot addition is entirely in the required 30 -foot rear yard setback, so it also does not present an "equal to or better than" solution that the Code requires as it closes in on the adjoining neighbor's yard and takes away an existing view down the lake to the east. 5.) SUMMARY: The current code requirements have been established to offer the basic requirements of adequate light, separation, privacy, etc. and on certain properties and neighborhoods; the additional "view protection." In this case, if the house met all the current code requirements there would be no issues as outlined in the narrative, as the applicant would be setback 30 —feet from the rear property line, thus opening up an additional 14 to 18 feet of additional "view corridor" for the adjoining neighbors. The neighbors have accepted the applicants' "pre- existing conditions", as their right to significantly encroach on the current yard setbacks, but vigorously oppose any further intrusion of these "nonconforming structures." The explicit "RID test" of proposing improvements that are "equal to or better than the Code requires" have not been proven, and we doubt that the test can be met, in that the "outlined issues" all add to the "nonconformity to the code" and take away or further impede on the adjoining neighbors rights to privacy and enjoyment of views afforded by the "Code setback requirements." The existing house currently encroaches into the required rear yard setback by at least 50%; no more intrusion is warranted. The existing "lot coverage" is listed as 47% where 25% is the "Code" maximum, for the height of this structure, so the existing home and improvements are almost twice what is allowed by "Code." No other extensions or lot coverage should be warranted as the site coverage is already far more that the "Code" allows. The Lake Front Road neighborhood is unique, a neighborhood of smaller lots with "larger lot zoning" (R7.5, 7,500 sq. ft. min. lots), the neighborhood breaks many zoning rules to achieve its unique charming character, but the lakefront side, where residents live and enjoy this wonderful setting have codes, rules, and sensitivities that must be respected. The street frontage along Lake Front Road is not a street that one would orient towards as the entire focus, livability and desirability is towards the lake to the north, so all the "activity" is on the north side of the properties and therefore the increased sensitivity to anything proposed on this side, especially when the existing structure is already over 50% into the required setback, eliminating open space and view potential of the adjoining neighboring properties. Any further intrusion or expansion of the existing footprint and height is not justified as it takes away expectations of the existing neighbors' understanding and respect for the existing setback requirements. We have outlined our observations, and our preliminary calculations from drawings that were submitted, voiced our serious concerns and look forward to discussing further. In short, we do 147 not believe the applicant has proposed an application that is "equal to or better than the Code allows" as has been outlined in this narrative. Please enter this analysis as our formal objection to the project as submitted for the RID LU13- 0025, 1227 Lake Front Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon. Respectfully submitted, 'lp J ahran, ch�ltect Ra G T t 8, PI Tahran Arc " Jeure a Planning, LLC. TAHRAN ARCHUECTURE & PLANNING LLC 148 LL�l r� N a' 2 7 H 2 00 z _o LTJ W -} LTJ F J J Cf \ H Y ftJ W Z ~ o W 0� O z J o Q d n fi � v'l LLJ 0. 0 O ILw CL > z QJ/� Q `dti' all Tom.. cn �' w UJJO Y LIry i �i rr N $W it TQ L n ca a pn L -L U ¢m O� W y o�Qo LLJ O J.. Lit Z W Cn ry J O "d) Y z w W�a � Cti o > Z!. .� i Z 5 0 o w w w LL�l r� N a' 2 7 H 2 00 z _o LTJ W -} LTJ F J J Cf \ H Y ftJ W Z ~ o W 0� O z J o Q d n fi � v'l 149 LLJ 0. 0 O ILw CL > z QJ/� Q n Y9 g 7wY �a LLI,U w? C] Y V a �ft: 4 UJJO Y LIry i �i rr N $W it TQ L n ca a pn L -L U ¢m O� W y o�Qo < o n N Y 149 150 IPF \�§ ZIL OVON INm:GMVI FA 150 IPF \�§ 151 ----'---.....------"'— ---T------------------�� 152 1, �0. dries } a� g d W ---T------------------�� 152 1, I z 94 NIL I 153 z 153 p o 'd W lu�`3 �.OnoU UON z� IE o IL QVOa 1NOItUM Nl s I I ! I I( I r o p s I I ! I I( I r o { l - --- y 5 � o i i I W m W - � A if u. I a t - r +-7-7 7,- 7- [� axrs�s I e•s� -._ ... � z zn rs — ���� ,.- •4409 ,� FF'� ✓' w I i W a z u� 154 J�J 155 156 ------------- ---------------m LUf I I f I I I ! I J I / I I ` I I � j N o I w cs m I I / I I I / / of ! alI z� wJ""N I I I / / / / / / I r----------------- I I I I I I I I 0 O I a � I h J CD �T I a I - � m. I I � j U d 4 h I � W Ill 158 I I �/e\G\) � 2/ � \ / � /)ƒ�{�\f { 158 I I z z PUP �/e\G\) � 2/ � � /)ƒ�{�\f { z z PUP a u z F E V w 0TaC7°O ri❑O ® �. I b` f `U yL p 159 Z. 160 2 0 0 Z _2 F� t WN 2 0 0 9.Q~tW Zll a -lc 2;k Eu 6 Iz I Z _2 F� t 9.Q~tW Zll a -lc 2;k Eu 6 Iz I < t a zzk 'noVc2 f{ {61 B¢ as 4 i E 0)oa0nJ XM � 9p T oX- �o iLL wz 05w �M U U o Hr0 f h r zzk 'noVc2 B¢ as 4 i E 0)oa0nJ XM oX- �o iLL wz 05w �M U U o Hr0 f h r 161 'noVc2 B¢ as E 0)oa0nJ T IGa �� C O e' n� 161 IGa a C O e' n� 161 4, �,14— — !GNEIOO AM 162 C, 0 0 E as 162 C, 0 0 E d �m I tl3NM0�35�3Nil ALN3dOHd HV3y I I ti � 1 _` � y J3NtlD9M5'�Y_3N1l Ala3dOJd ytl�y_ t F e awe W� oQ imm u a5 ULLO cc y rc ®®lk' 1., x.g d N b yN S « r d� pp 12 d �m I tl3NM0�35�3Nil ALN3dOHd HV3y I I ti � 1 _` � y J3NtlD9M5'�Y_3N1l Ala3dOJd ytl�y_ t 163 F e awe W� oQ imm u a5 ULLO cc y rc ®®lk' ... x.g d N b yN LIAw pp 163 LU LU awe W� oQ imm _ �o yz o ul x LIAw 12 q q¢K eee ��, YYY II q]Owt K6rv1� 163 164 Nu0Manlu, Jessica From: Doug Reiter [dou@kerno.nVm] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:15 AM To; Numanog|u.Jeoaioa Cc: Schmidt Ede; Weber Tom Subject: Lake Front Rd/Caplan Jessica: -`/ I want to reiterate my objection to any variance afforded the Caplan application- This because the current home is already outside code. Ede Schmidt and I are supporting each other, as the proposed remodel will adversely affect both adjoining properties. Please be advised we will use all legal avenues available to keep the Caplan house within code. Best' Doug Doug Reiter CM[0 The Douglas Reiter Company 781'748-7277 P 781-740-7279 F www.reiterco.com Please excuse typo's, easily made on Smartphones. EXHIBIT G-203 LU 13-0025 z 165 166 Reynolds, Janice x-% n* From: ede schmidt [dahlbergschmidt@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:00 PM NOV 0 7 ZO13 To: Reynolds, Janice Cc: RALPH TAHRAN; Tom Weber; DOUG REITER; Lake Oswego a of L*0 S%` Subject: Fwd: Caplan RID #2 Plans. 1227 Lake Front Road Notification ,V,aiY?f'.EJfiti`'z�iero}§tsi? I �'t,. Janice, I am forwarding this email to make sure you have a copy to review in ther absence of Jessica Numanoglu. Please confirm via email you have received my long email stating my opposition to Caplan RID42 before the November 8th response deadline. Thank you, ede schmidt Home owner: 1237 Lake .Front Road From: "ede schmidt" <dahlbergschmidt(a4oincast, net> To: "Jessica Numanoglu" <jnJ umanoY,lu cr ci.oswe-,o.or.us> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2013 3:43:01 PM Subject: Fwd: Caplan RID 42 Plans. 1227 Lake Front Road Notification Jessica, I mistakenly sent original email to another Jessica. See other recipients of RID# 2 email below. Thank you, ede schmidt From: "ede schmidt" dahlberaschmidt owcorncast.net Cc: "RALPH TAHRAN" <ralphta:hran q comg-a net>, "DOUG REITER" <Do11L, �)reiterco.com>, "Tom Weber" <toanCc��overland deve, tom� ent.com>, "Lake Oswego" <j_� ff. rte- ard((� l akecorp. com> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2013 3:35:38 PM Subject: Caplan RID 42 Plans. 1227 Lake Front Road Notification Jessica, For the record, this email is to notify you that Ralph Tahran will be submitting a detailed response letter to you addressing my opposition in a few specific areas to the RID 82 Caplan Plans. In this email I also state my opposition to Caplan's RID# 2. 1 continue to request that all building and zoning codes are strictly adhered to when the Caplan RID 42 is reviewed. Please note, that there is a danger of setting a precedent when plans are approved that don't meet the City of Lake Oswego building/zoning codes. Overbuilding lots beyond a City Code is not acceptable. EXHIBIT G-204 LU 13-0025 2. &- -e5 ' :1 167 Lake Front Road is an unusual street in that the lots vary tremendously in shape, size and slope which makes placement of structures a challenge. The lakeside of our homes is the front yard not the side of the house facing the street. My house is an example of a structure sitting high on a lot while overbuilt homes on each side of my house are extremely close to the lakefront wall, thus currently obstructing my lake view. By allowing Caplan's RID42 plans to construct a new and higher roofline on the lakeside both of Caplan's neighbors, Doug Reiter's and my lake view will be even more obstructed. It is my understanding that a professional, registered survey with all monuments marked will be required before any building permits are approved. As you know, I have requested a boundary survey showing property line monuments from the beginning of this process. The land diagram in RID42 fails to show all boundary monuments. These adjoining properties, 1227 and 1237 Lake Front, have shared common walls that have been in existence since 1958. My side of the carport wall was faced in used brick in. mid or late 60's with the approval of the neighbor. In late 90's I had a cedar lattice wall structure built to camouflage the unsightly cinder block house boat wall, again thus structure was approved by the neighbor at 1227 Lake Front. Thank you in advance for your time in thoroughly examining Ralph Tahran's RID# 2 response letter in detail and making sure RID# 2 is in complete appliance to all existing City of Lake Oswego building/zoning codes. Sincerely, ede schmidt Owner: 123 7 Lake Front Road z 168 (CEEIVE November 8, 2013 NOV 0 8 2013 Jessica-Numanoglu, Senior Planner City of Lake Oswego Planning Dept. P.O. Bo 369 Lake 'Oswego, OR 97034 Email ;unrngL1_0dLir RE: RID Application LU13-0025,1227 Lake Front Road, Tax lot 400, 21E 10CA Dear Jessica, As in my letter of August 14, 2013 on this same RID Application, I have been retained by the two adjoining neighbors, Ellen (Ede) Schmidt, 1237 Lake Front Road and Doug Reiter, 1217 Lake Front Road, on each side of the LU13-0025 RID Application to study and offer comments on the proposed design in relation to the existing code requirements, neighborhood compatibility and the "burden of proof' requirements for a "RID Review" to propose designs that do not meet "zone standards", but would meet their intent in a way that is different from, but "equal to or better than" what the Code permits. With is in mind we have reviewed the current staff report of October 24, 2013 and again have the following concerns and do not believe the application offers a design that is "equal to or better than" what the Code would require for the protection of the neighbor's views, privacy and property values, and want to register our concerns with this follow up letter. To avoid as much duplication as possible, please refer to my letter of August 14, 2013 where we first registered our concerns accompanied by a detailed analysis of the applicant's submitted drawings. Although some minor changes have been made to the original drawings, all of our concerns and objections remain the same. We will comment further with this letter. We do not feel that the requested exceptions to the code, especially on the lake side offer a design that is "better than or equal to what the code would require", the request is simply to further violate the code requirements by intruding even further into the rear yard and further impeding adjoining neighbor's views. The RID process is a "design process", where the applicant has the burden to prove that the "alternative design" to the "code requirements" offers an "equal to or superior" design solution to what the code requires. We do not believe the proposed design is "better than or equal to" in any way and is simply a way to get a larger deck, fill in some lower level spaces, build a larger roof and resolve some other existing design flaws, all at the expense of increased loss of privacy, and further impeded views of the neighboring properties. This does not represent "preserving neighborhood character or privacy of neighboring properties" as is a key consideration of a "RID Review". in addition to the comments and detailed analysis in my letter of August 14, 2013, we offer the following comments on the October 24, 2013 Staff Report. As has been mentioned, the current residence (1227 Lake Front Road) has many nonconforming dimensional standards of the R7.5 Zone, many homes along Lake Front Road do, and are part of the character of this neighborhood, the focus of the neighborhood, of course, is on the "lake side", the street side is not the focus of this street and is of less importance for code compliance as long as safety is preserved. We understand that the home was built prior to existing code requirements and that is why many code violations exist, but they should not be increased in any way, especially in the rear yard, the focus of the livability of these properties, as it will impact TAHRAN ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING LLC EXHIBIT G-205 2333 SW STEPHENSON ST.,PORTLAND,OR.97219 LU 13-0025 169 neighboring properties negatively. Any further encroachment should only be allowed by consent of adjoining neighbors as it violates their privacy, property values, and further impedes their views that they have counted on the codes to protect. We have asked that a "boundary survey" by a professional registered surveyor be done to establish exactly where the concrete block (CMU' carport wall is in relation to the west property line. The applicant states it is on their property, visually it looks like it may be on the property line, the "Existing Conditions" survey (not a "boundary survey") does not locate the wall and is not drawn to scale on the map so we do not know if the wall is on the applicant's property as stated. The neighbor to the west (1237 Lake Front Road) will not allow the wall to be used as a "carport wall" if it is on the property line as her permission will be required. If the wall is on the applicant's property, we do not believe the carport can be constructed as designed because it does not demonstrate the fire protection required by the building code for structures "less than three feet from a property line". A boundary survey is absolutely necessary to establish what the existing condition is to be able to present an appropriate design. We have asked for an arborist's review to protect the existing specimen tree at the southwest corner of the carport as the applicant is proposing approximately two feet of "compacted fill" in very close proximity. The Staff report requires this as a "Condition #4", but we feel it should be done as part of this process to assure that the tree will not be damaged and to review the necessary precautionary ensures during construction. This should be done prior to any decision being made on this proposal. The proposed new roof line at the north elevation is allowed for "nonconforming structures to be raised up to six feet in height". We understand this exception in the code, but it is especially disturbing in that it is being proposed in an area that already intrudes into the "required rear yard" by 18 feet, so it is not a sensitive design solution for the lake side community, as it presents a further imposing mass; further impeding views of the adjoining neighbors. Since this is a "RID Review" which is to offer "equal to or better than" design solutions, we feel this should be considered. On page seven of the "Staff Report", it states, "The proposed development complies with all of the site development limitations in the R7.5 Zone, except the side and rear yard setbacks and maximum lot coverage." These are the critical standards that are the most important to preserve neighbors' privacy, so they need to be very closely examined when the proposal is to further encroach on the code requirements, especially when the requested "encroachment" is not "slight", the existing violations are not minor. The "lot coverage" increase is from a required maximum of 25% to 47.8°/x, almost twice as large as the code requirement! The existing house and carport are currently 1096 square feet over the "maximum lot coverage" allowed by code. No further lot coverage is warranted nor should even be considered, especially since it would all be constructed in areas where the setbacks are already in serious violation (rear yard). The side yard requirement of 15 feet "combined" is being requested to be 11'-10". Again, lots in this neighborhood typically are narrow so side yards are important for privacy of adjoining neighbors. The proposal does not offer an "equal to or better than code requires" design as required, only an increase in "loss of privacy" for adjoining neighbors. The rear yard request to "decrease the rear yard setback for the dwelling from 30 feet to 9'-9" is perhaps the most egregious violation in the most sensitive area of the site, the lake side, the primary living area, the most valuable portion of these lots in this neighborhood. The rear yards establish the "neighborhood character" of this street, and further violations of the rear yards should only be considered when adjoining neighbors agree to any further intrusions. It is true that the applicant is "only requesting another 3 feet intrusion into the rear yard," but that is an additional 3 feet to the existing 18 foot violation" 1 170 If approved, the house will "encroach" into the "required 30 foot rear yard setback" by 20'--3", a very serious intrusion into the most sensitive part of these lake side properties. This is not a design that is "equal to or better than" what the code requires, especially since it is also entirely a two story mass. The request only serves to further impede the adjoining neighbor's view corridor and reduce privacy of their rear yard. The "staff' has concluded that the "design features and locational factors" demonstrate a "more compatible, positive relationship to the scale, character and privacy of its neighbors", but the two adjoining neighbors, those "most affected" do not think so at all and vigorously oppose this proposal as presented. "Staff' finds that the resulting design is "equal to or better to a dwelling that could meet the setback and lot coverage standards and that the development is compatible with the neighborhood character in the vicinity of the site.' We completely and strongly disagree with this finding. A "dwelling that meets code", simply would have a 30 foot rear yard, preserving extremely valuable views and privacy for the neighbors, it would also have 1096 square feet less of lot coverage, offering a home that is more in proportion and scale with the lot size, and neighborhood. Instead of an "equal to or better design" than what "code" would require, we find the proposal to be a method to further ignore code requirements, and further intrude into required setbacks at the expense of the adjoining neighbors' privacy, views, and property values. We feel strongly that the applicant has not met the burden of proof of an "equal to or better than design" that RID Application requires. Please consider our comments carefully in your final deliberations. Please enter this as our formal objection to the project as submitted for the RID LU13- 0025, at 1227 Lake Front Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon. Sincerely, WUT� Architect Cc: Ellen (Ede) Schmidt Doug Reiter 2333 SW STEPHENSON ST.,PORTLAND,OR.97219 171 172