Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2021-05-03 PMCity of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of May 3, 2021 Page 1 of 10 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes May 3 , 2021 The Commissioners convened at 7:00 PM online, via Zoom. Members present: Chair Jeff Shearer, Vice Chair David Poulson, Kirk Smith, Jason Frankel, Randy Arthur, Mark Silen, and Craig Berardi Members absent: None Staff present: Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Evan Fransted, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, City Attorney Pro Tem; and Kat Kluge, Administrative Support COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Rapf informed DRC members that the Budget Committee met last week for its first session; noting that the biennial budget for 2021 to 2023 is approximately $408 million and the majority of the revenue base stems from property taxes. He stated that the primary topic was the allocation of $1,600,000 to add four additional police officers to the department. MINUTES March 15, 2021: There were no corrections noted. Commissioner Silen moved to approve the Minutes of March 15, 2021. Seconded by Commissioner Berardi and passed 6:0, with 1 abstention. Chair Shearer asked for clarification of who was eligible to vote, as he understood it to be those members who were present. Evan Boone, City Attorney Pro Tem, replied that all members were eligible to vote. PUBLIC HEARING LU 20-0032, an appeal of the staff decision to approve the following Residential Infill Design (RID) variances in order to construct an addition onto an existing single-family dwelling: • Reduce the 25-foot front yard setback from Sarah Hill Lane to 10 feet; and • Allow the garage to be located closer to the street (Sarah Hill Lane) than the dwelling. This site is located at 17760 Lake Haven Drive [21E17BC01500]. The Staff Coordinator is Evan Fransted, Senior Planner. Mr. Boone gave an overview of the public hearing process. Mr. Boone asked DRC members to declare any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases, or financial conflicts of interest and their business/employment. All DRC members declared they have no ex parte contacts, conflicts of interests, and no biases. Commissioner Berardi City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of May 3, 2021 Page 2 of 10 stated that he was familiar with the site. There were no objections to any of the Commissioners’ rights to hear this application. Staff Report Evan Fransted, Senior Planner, presented the staff report; first noting that Exhibits G-203 through G-208 were received that day and added to the record. The site is approximately 15,523 sq. ft. in area and is a through lot with frontages on Lake Haven Drive and Sarah Hill Lane (both local streets). The site is zoned R-7.5 and is developed with a single-family dwelling. The surrounding neighborhood is also zoned R-7.5 with single- family dwellings, except the lot abutting to the south is an open-space tract owned by the City. The site has an irregular lot configuration with multiple side yards, two front yards, and the rear abutting the canal. The existing dwelling was constructed in 1968 and is nonconforming to the front yard setback along Sarah Hill Lane and along the east side yard. The site plan, main and upper floor plans, and elevation drawings and renderings were shown. The staff report (pages 12 through 20) provides a detailed analysis of the general Design Variance and RID Standards. For the general Design Variance Standards, staff finds that in order to add a third vehicle bay to the existing garage and comply with the existing design standards, the garage must be oriented toward Lake Haven Drive. The garage design standard requires that a garage may not be located in front of a dwelling and, in this case, would have to be located closer to Lake Haven Drive in front of the existing garage. The other option would be side-loading; however, in this case that is not possible on Sarah Hill Lane. The garage must be placed in front of the house, as there is no other option. If the garage was placed oriented toward Lake Haven Drive, it would most likely mean the removal of the two large Douglas fir trees located there. Staff finds that a side-loading placement, in order to meet garage design standards, is impractical due to the constraints of the existing dwelling’s location and trees. For the front setback, the Applicant seeks to demonstrate that an alternative design will better accomplish the purposes, goals, and objectives of the base district. There is no existing district plan. The general purpose of setbacks is to allow light and access between structures in an open unobstructed area (from ground to sky). The proposed third vehicle bay would be 13.7 feet high and 10 feet from the front property line. That single story portion then increases in height to 20.7 feet, with a storage space above the garage. The closest structure is the neighbor's abutting garage at 10.8 feet. Staff finds that the proposed distance between the structures will allow light and access as intended by the standard. Staff also finds that the proposed development will result in a project that is exceptional in design and will be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood, and with the existing colonial style. Staff finds that the design of the garage meets the purpose of the R-7.5 base district for setbacks. In determining whether the RID variance is met, the pattern and character of lots within 300 feet of the subject property are considered. The area is a mix of architectural styles. In regard to the dwelling size, a variance may be approved when a more compatible, positive relationship between the size of the proposed dwelling and the scale and character of the neighborhood is demonstrated. Staff finds that there are several properties along Sarah Hill Lane and the southern portion of Lake Haven Drive that include front-loading garages, and there are several that are nonconforming to the required 25-foot setback along Sarah Hill Lane. Staff finds the proposed design results in a development that is better than what could be approved without exceptions. In regard to relationship to the street, staff finds that the design will make a positive contribution to the scale and character of the streetscape. The proposed new driveway is located at the end of the cul-de-sac on Sarah Hill Lane. There is no sidewalk along the site City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of May 3, 2021 Page 3 of 10 frontage and pedestrian traffic near the proposed garage would likely be accessing the open space or the abutting dwelling. The proposed metal fencing and metal gate will provide screening. Staff recommends that the Commission approve this application. Questions of Staff Commissioner Arthur asked about the noted dispute over ownership of a small portion of the property where the driveway is intended to be constructed (an adverse possession claim) and whether that could be considered or given any weight in their deliberations. Mr. Fransted replied that the Applicant provided a stamped survey that shows that that area is their property, and any adverse possession claim would be up to the courts. Mr. Boone added that they look at the record title in determining ownership of a property and until a court enters a decree, the record title is the record title. He reminded members that the DRC does not adjudicate claims of adverse possession. Commissioner Berardi asked if the existing 2-car garage would remain. Mr. Fransted indicated that it would but was going to be remodeled. He then asked for confirmation that the third driveway would be an entrance to the third garage. Mr. Fransted affirmed. In response to the next question, Mr. Fransted explained that the property line was 10 feet from the dashed line seen in the drawing (the very edge of the proposed garage). Commissioner Berardi inquired whether a precedent would be set by approving this design variance exception. Mr. Boone replied that it would not because each application needed to be judged on its own merits and whether or not it satisfied the criteria (explaining the goal of the RID criteria). Applicant Testimony Joan Hutchinson, both property owner and Applicant, stated that she would be sharing her time with Karen Sedwick, Project Designer with Metke Remodeling & Luxury Homes. She focused on the three key issues of the Appeal. She agreed with the conclusions reached by Mr. Fransted. She acknowledged that there were restrictions with the property and with the proposed design, a very attractive space would be created. Regarding the driveway and fencing, those are allowed without any variance needed. The design elements used came from the City's guidelines. Ms. Sedwick stated that Ms. Hutchinson's goal is to bring her older home into the 20th century regarding function and features, and to prevent development companies from coming in and scraping the home to build something else. The current garage does not have the space for two cars, as the laundry area takes up the left side. The existing fence is six feet tall, and Ms. Hutchinson continues to have the right to have the same size fence in place. The second story of the proposed garage would be approximately 44-inches from the 10-foot setback and would only be encroaching on that setback at the left corner. They will be preserving the two large fir trees. The existing garage will be updated to a carriage-style with more wood and glass and would maintain the mullioned windows and dental molding. They will be installing a paver patio area and additional landscaping. The existing garage will be brought forward, and the door will be extended to 24 feet. They do not intend for visitors to park on the shorter driveway of the new garage. The east wall of the existing garage will be rebuilt to bring it into conformance with the setback requirements. Given the other front- loading garages in the neighborhood, they do not feel this will stand out. There is nothing in the design that will impact the use of the adjacent empty lot (which is being called a "park" even though it is not developed). City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of May 3, 2021 Page 4 of 10 Questions of Applicant Vice Chair Poulson asked to review the Sarah Hill Lane elevation rendering; pointing out that most colonial-style homes have more of a symmetrical roofline appearance, but the new proposal did not. In response, Ms. Sedwick showed a photo of the existing exterior that depicted the existing asymmetrical roofline; adding that the new addition would come off of that. She agreed that this was odd because this addition would become a second frontage; however, adjusting the plan would decrease the second-floor square footage. Ms. Hutchinson agreed that the challenge lies with the existing house having the asymmetrical addition on the canal-side, that had to be tied into. She noted that the symmetry would be kept with the front of the house, along with the colonial design. Vice Chair Poulson asked staff if a 6-foot fence would be allowed (essentially on the right-of-way (ROW) line) if the area is considered a front yard. Mr. Fransted replied that a fence was allowed along a front yard and if it was within 10 feet, the maximum height would be four feet and beyond the 10-foot setback, the fence can go to six feet. Commissioner Arthur asked for affirmation that the current fence would be replaced. Ms. Hutchinson agreed that it would be replaced with a fence that would comply with City code and will be done for security and to delineate her property from the open area. In response to his next question, Ms. Sedwick responded that the driveway will remain asphalt, except for a small portion in front of the new garage doorway (this will be where the pavers will be used), as the tree roots are breaking through. Public Testimony In Opposition Hans Stenfert-Kroese, neighbor from two houses down, stated that he has lived in Lake Oswego for 18 years and has raised his children here. He opined that the park at the end of the cul-de-sac was part of the reason they moved there because it had a unique setting and feel. He stated that he was opposed to the construction because the character of the additional building will completely change the character of the park. He requested that members consider the changes in the allure and setting with the new façade of the garage. He suggested parking a boat or RV at a storage facility, rather than in a huge garage. Emily Levine, daughter of the Appellant, ceded her time to her mother, Kathy Levine. Gary Levine, Appellant, noted that most of the testimony was in written form in the file and raised questions that were not included in this presentation. He clarified that the park was defined as a "park and natural area (PNA)." He informed members that he and his wife bought their house in 1997 because it was on a cul-de-sac and next to the park. He noted that they have never opposed any building project in Lake Oswego before this time. He requested that members deny this application in order for the Applicant to find a suitable solution for the nearby neighborhood and community. He showed copies of the signed petition in opposition from 30 neighbors. He opined that the evidence did not show that the trees had to be removed if using the alternate site for the garage, and that if needed, they could be removed after obtaining a permit to do so. Further, a side-loading garage could be shifted slightly to the north. The floor plan at Exhibit E-006 shows that there is a 72 sq. ft. laundry room proposed for the second floor of the house, thus the reason to widen the garage is a disingenuous argument. He noted that the windows would not be symmetrical. He opined that the Applicant always enters her house from the Lake Haven side and never from the Sarah Hill Lane side; adding that the new garage would be used for a boat and the Applicant would only use that entry two times a year. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of May 3, 2021 Page 5 of 10 Kathy Levine, wife of Appellant, stated that they spent many hours trying to understand what the City codes, the staff reports, and the architectural designs meant. They do understand that the variances are there to create better designs and to make their neighborhoods a better place to live. The key issues they are bringing forward are: 1) It is not necessary (this is about storing a boat for part of the winter, even though the property already has a boat house); 2) There are better options (add a lift in the boat house, add a shed at the back or front, pay for off-site winter storage, orient the garage like the two next-door neighbors); and 3) It does not give back to the neighborhood (not superior in detailing or aesthetics, adds an unnecessary third driveway, and it will affect the public park users). Example photos of neighboring homes with superior detailing were shown. She noted that the park was part of a larger pathway network. She asked that the design be reevaluated, as it did not add to the colonial character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Berardi asked what their feeling on the change to the aesthetics to the park was if the two large trees were cut down. Mrs. Levine replied that they were not in favor of cutting trees down, but they have not seen the alternative renderings to know if they would oppose those, also. Mr. Levine added that there was no reason that the side-loading garage could not be on the north property line, as the neighbor a couple of doors down. He also suggested a tandem garage on the north side. Commissioner Frankel asked Chair Shearer if it was true that the Appellant could request a continuance to submit more evidence, and to confirm that it was not up to the DRC to rethink the application outside of what was before them. Chair Shearer affirmed that the DRC was to look at what was in front of them that night unless a continuance was requested to provide further evidence. Commissioner Frankel then asked for confirmation that they were not to look at the trees until they come before the DRC. Chair Shearer affirmed. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Sedwick pointed out that none of the people that signed the petition offered any public comment during the RID process and it was not until the Levines circulated the petition that the signatures were gathered; adding that there was no documentation of what was provided in the gathering of the signatures. She opined that this spoke of those neighbors not being supplied with the entire scope of the project. Ms. Sedwick stated that this construction project would in no way take anything away from the park; citing the Appellant's words of "It's only going to be driven on and used twice a year," and indicating that there would not be extra traffic or disruption of kids playing in the cul-de-sac. She noted that the Applicant has every right to ask for a driveway on Sarah Hill Lane with a separate permit right now, all variances aside. Ms. Sedwick informed members that they were not trying to hide that a laundry room was being added to the new second floor, rather, they were trying to build a proper two-car garage, with a third bay on Sarah Hill Drive. She asked for clarification from City staff over the empty lot, as there was no signage signifying it was a proper park; believing the City could develop it if they wanted to. Mr. Boone asked if anyone had a request to present additional evidence. Mrs. Levine asked if the process was that if there was no continuance, members would make their decision on what has been presented and that would become the final decision. Mr. Boone answered that, if there were no continuance, the DRC would make a tentative decision, based on what was in the record, and in two weeks, they would come back with written Findings, and that decision is subject to appeal to the City Council (this is a hearing on the evidence obtained below). Mr. Levine asked for a moment to talk it over. Chair Shearer denied this request. Mr. Levine requested a continuance. Mr. Boone explained the continuance process for this type of initial evidentiary hearing (typically an allowance for only additional written testimony or an allowance City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of May 3, 2021 Page 6 of 10 for both verbal and written testimony). Commissioner Smith recommended that additional evidence only be allowed in written form. Chair Shearer concurred. Vice Chair Poulson stated that he was not in agreement with this (though normally he would be), given the number of signatures on the petition. He would like to allow them the opportunity to come and speak their mind about this application. Commissioner Smith asked Vice Chair Poulson why those individuals were not present that night. Vice Chair Poulson answered that he did not know, but given the point made, he would like to hear their perspective. Commissioner Frankel noted they could submit a written statement, as there had been success with this on other continuances. Vice Chair Poulson stated that he would feel it would be a more open and fair process to hear ideas from more of them. Chair Shearer took a straw poll over written or oral. Commissioner Arthur stated that he found it significant that so many signed the petition (with weight given to this); adding that those individuals did have the opportunity to be present that night. He voted for written-only, as it may be more convenient for them. Commissioner Berardi concurred with Commissioner Arthur, citing the case from a couple of months ago where they took additional written-only testimony. Commissioner Silen asked Chair Shearer to cite the location of the petition. Chair Shearer answered that the document was found at Exhibit G-208, page 2. Commissioner Silen opined that this should be allowed in written-form only. Mr. Boone indicated that Chair Shearer would need to be offered a motion, suggesting that it read "Move to continue the public hearing for the submission of written testimony only. Any person may submit additional written evidence by close of business on Monday, May 10, 2021, and any person may submit rebuttal evidence to that new evidence by close of business on Wednesday, May 12, 2021.” Staff will organize and submit the new evidence and a brief memo by Friday, May 14, 2021. DRC members would hold the continued hearing on Monday, May 17, 2021. Chair Shearer asked staff if that would work with their schedule. Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager, affirmed that staff could provide the evidence and a memo by Friday, May 14, 2021. Commissioner Silen asked Mr. Boone for confirmation that this period of time was open for anyone involved in the case to put forward any new evidence, including the Applicant. Mr. Boone affirmed that anyone may submit new evidence. Commissioner Silen moved to adopt the suggested motion by Mr. Boone. Seconded by Commissioner Smith and passed 7:0. Mr. Boone reminded everyone about the deadlines for submitting new evidence. Ms. Numanoglu stated that the new evidence will be posted on the project's webpage and no new evidence should be submitted during the rebuttal period. LU 20-0045, a request for approval of Major Variances to the front yard, north side yard and rear yard setbacks in order to construct carports in an existing residential parking lot. This site is Tract A of the Lake Oswego Sailing Club PD on 3rd St. (No site Address) [Tax Map/Lot 2110AB12200]. The Staff Coordinator is Evan Fransted, Senior Planner. Mr. Boone gave an overview of the public hearing process. Mr. Boone asked DRC members to declare any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases, or financial conflicts of interest and their business/employment. All DRC members declared they have no ex parte contacts, conflicts of interests, and no biases. There were no objections to any of the Commissioners’ rights to hear this application. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of May 3, 2021 Page 7 of 10 Staff Report Mr. Fransted presented the staff report; first noting that Exhibits G-001, G-002, G-100, and G- 200 were received prior to the hearing and added to the record. The site is approximately 15,756 sq. ft. in area and has frontage on 3rd Street. It is zoned R-7.5 and adjacent properties to the north and west are also zoned R-7.5 and developed with single- family dwellings. This site abuts the railroad to the south. The parking lot serves the cabana dwellings along 3rd Street and those dwellings do not have access to a street frontage. The properties to the east are zoned EC and R-0 and developed with multi-family dwellings. The site is Tract A of the Sailing Club development, which includes a parking lot with 16 surface parking spaces and a garage which includes 10 parking spaces. The parking lot constitutes the only parking available to the 10 dwellings to the south. The existing parking lot was constructed in 1988, prior to the Sailing Club plan development approval and is nonconforming to the R-7.5 front yard, rear yard, and side yard setback standards. The Applicant proposes to construct three carports over existing parking spaces (which will cover 5, 3, and 2 spaces, with the others left uncovered). Example photos were shown of what the Applicant intends to construct. The carports will be between 9 to 10 feet high, 20 feet deep and 10 feet wide. They will be made of treated wood posts and backboards, all painted white. The Major Variance Criteria was reviewed for DRC members. The longstanding interpretation of past variances approval have held that "reasonable use" is to have a two-car garage per single- family dwelling. The carports will add to the existing 10 spaces in garages, for a total of 20 covered spaces (or 2 parking spaces per dwelling). Staff finds that the inability of owners to construct carports would be a hardship. A photo was shown of the site constraints. The lot is oddly-shaped. All parking spaces are within the nonconforming setbacks. The only location to construct the carports are over the existing parking spaces. Staff finds that there are existing physical circumstances relating to the site to make the hardship unnecessary. The closest property that may be affected would be to the north and is 23 feet from the dwelling at 300 Lakewood Court. There will be no increase to the noise or traffic, as the lot will be used as it is today. There is no need for grading or tree removal for the carports to be constructed, so there will be no impact to drainage or erosion, and it is not in any identified slide area. Staff finds that granting the variances to allow the construction of the carports in the front, side and rear setbacks would not be injurious to the neighborhood or adjacent properties. The property directly across 3rd Street includes multiple-family dwellings (The Uptown at Lake Oswego Apartments), which have garages in the front yard setbacks of approximately four feet. The three abutting properties to the north (Lake Bay Court) include dwellings with garages in the front yard setbacks of approximately 20 to 22 feet. The proposed carports to the rear yard will include an existing six-foot fence that will remain to provide some screening. Staff finds that, given the mixed development in the neighborhood, distances from the carports to the abutting dwellings, existing fencing, and the low height of the carports, that granting the variance to allow construction of the carports in the setbacks would not be injurious to the neighborhood or the adjacent properties. Due to the physical constraints previously discussed, there is no alternative site plan that would comply with the R-7.5 setbacks. Staff finds that the requested variances are necessary to achieve reasonable use of the property. The only change to the parking lot will be adding one 14-foot-wide handicapped parking space along an easement that may be used. This parking space would be approximately 14 feet from the existing garage, which would not allow for sufficient turning radius per the Code for a car backing out of the garage. The Uniform Building City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of May 3, 2021 Page 8 of 10 Code requires accessible parking spaces to be located on the shortest practical accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to the building entrance. In this case, the shortest route would have the handicapped spaced moved to the east side, where there is an existing one and one- half-sized parking space (past plans show this to be the proposed handicapped parking space). There is no marked handicapped space in the parking lot currently. Staff recommends that the handicapped parking space be located to the south of the driveway (noted in Condition A-1). Questions of Staff Chair Shearer asked Mr. Fransted to show the site plan again to clarify the proposed location of the handicapped parking space. Mr. Fransted affirmed that the space is in the easement of someone else's property and there is a shed that abuts the proposed handicapped parking space. Applicant Testimony William Neumann, Applicant's Representative, 103 3rd Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, stated that the parking lot is currently used by 10 single-family dwellings and the addition of the 10 carports would provide a total of two covered parking spaces per dwelling. One of the existing parking spaces will be converted to a handicapped space, adding that there should be no issue moving the space as recommended by staff. They are not asking for variances for lot coverage or any height requirements, as they will not be reducing or changing any of the existing landscaping. They will not add nor remove any asphalt. The public often uses the lot while visiting the condominiums across the street, or while at the farmers market or other event at Millennium Park. Having the carports will make it more apparent that it is a private lot. They will also offer protection from the rain or snow while loading cargo or passengers and will help protect damage to the automobiles caused by the weather. Questions of Applicant Chair Shearer inquired if there would be new fencing installed at the front. Mr. Neumann replied that there would be new fencing along the back and the side, but not where there the existing fence is currently located. Public Testimony In Favor Christine Meharry, resident of the Sailing Club, stated she had nothing to add. David Meharry, resident of the Sailing Club, stated that he and his wife have been living there for nine years and were in favor of and looking forward to having the carports. He thanked the DRC for the hard work they do and requested that they find in favor of this application. Mike Kehoe, resident of the Sailing Club, noted that he parked in the last garage space previously discussed, informing members that he had no trouble backing out when trucks were parked in the space indicated as the proposed handicapped parking space. He disagreed with Planning staff's assessment and stated that he would be in support of the handicapped parking space being located behind his parking space. Laurie Kehoe, resident of the Sailing Club, mentioned that there were a couple of landscape companies that they allowed to park in the lot. She agreed that they had no problems backing out of their own garage space. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of May 3, 2021 Page 9 of 10 Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Neumann addressed the two statements in opposition regarding the construction and how they were tired of it because of the construction of the new City Hall, stating that there would be enough room onsite to store the building materials and that there would be no more than two workmen’s trucks on the property at one time. Mr. Boone asked if any individual wished to request additional time to submit new evidence or if the Applicant wished additional time to submit a final written argument. There were no such requests made. Mr. Boone instructed Chair Shearer that members may move to deliberations. Deliberations Commissioner Silen asked for clarification over the handicapped parking space. Chair Shearer answered that the Applicant indicated that they would be fine with moving the space to the one recommended by staff. Mr. Fransted explained that when a new parking space is added to an existing lot, it must comply with the parking standards (for a 90-degree space, such as in the garage, the Code states that there must be at least a 20-foot aisle-width, but the proposal is only for a 14-foot aisle width). Commissioner Arthur requested affirmation that the change in location for the handicapped space was to one that was traditionally marked as a handicapped spot, and this would be preferable as it was closer to the units. Mr. Fransted affirmed. Commissioner Arthur stated that he would be in favor of the recommended change in location for the handicapped spot. He asked if it was possible to leave the area currently used by landscaping and utility vehicles as open paving available for parking. Mr. Fransted replied that he did not believe that area was striped, and no one should be parking there, but there were no known compliance issues. Commissioner Frankel stated that he appreciated the resident's statement about being able to back out of his garage space, but they could not guarantee that the next resident may be able to do that. With this not fitting the criteria, he stated he agreed with Commissioner Arthur and would put his vote for approval following staff's recommendation. Commissioner Smith stated he would vote to approve with the handicapped space being moved closer to the dwelling and that he concurred with Commissioner Frankel's opinion regarding a new resident and that it did not meet Code. Commissioner Berardi agreed that he would approve a motion with the change in the handicapped spot. Vice Chair Poulson pointed out that dimensional standards must be met, as it would not just be the City enforcing the ADA standards, it would be the ADA themselves. Given the change to improve the ADA space, he is all for approving this proposal. Vice Chair Poulson moved to approve LU 20-0045, with the condition that the ADA parking stall be moved as suggested by City staff. Seconded by Commissioner Smith and passed 7:0. Mr. Boone directed staff to return the Written Findings, Conclusion, and Order on May 17, 2021 at 7:00pm. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of May 3, 2021 Page 10 of 10 OTHER BUSINESS Schedule Review and Management Update Ms. Numanoglu updated DRC members on upcoming meetings: May 17, 2021 will have the continuance and Findings from this evening. June 21, 2021 will be the first potential in-person meeting in the new Council Chambers and there is a hearing scheduled for that date, which was continued from a previous DRC meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chair Shearer adjourned the meeting at 9:31 PM. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kat Kluge, Administrative Support