Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2021-09-20 PM eij•Ni ter, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO u o Development Review Commission Minutes �w September 20, 2021 GkEGo The Commissioners convened at 7:00 PM at City Hall, in the Council Chamber, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034. Members present: Chair Jeff Shearer, Vice Chair Randy Arthur, Kirk Smith, Mark Silen, Craig Berardi, and Bruce Poinsette Members absent: Jason Frankel Staff present: Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Kat Kluge, Administrative Support MINUTES August 16, 2021 September 8, 2021 The approval of the Minutes was deferred until the next meeting. FINDINGS LU 21-0036, a request for a Development Review Permit and Design Variances for a new mixed-use residential, commercial, and hotel development on the North Anchor site. This site is located at 500 1st St., 525 1st St., 33-41 B Ave., 504 N. State St. (Tax IDs: 21E03DD00500, 21E03DD00400, 21E03DD00300, and 21E03DD01200). The Staff Coordinator is Erik Olson, Senior Planner. Vice Chair Arthur moved to approve the Findings, Conclusion, and Order for LU 21-0036, as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Silen and passed 4:1, with 1 abstention. PUBLIC HEARING LU 21-0024, a request for a major variance to reduce the 18-foot front yard setback to 7 feet in order to construct a 2-car garage. This site is located at 550 Middlecrest Road (Tax Id: 21 E10AC06200). The Staff Coordinator is Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, gave an overview of the public hearing process and instructions for any additional verbal testimony given. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 20, 2021 Page 1 of 4 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 challenges to the Commissioners' rights to hear the application. Staff Report Prior to presenting the staff report, Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner, informed members that there were four additional Exhibits to add to the record: three letters in support of the application (Exhibits G-101 to G-103) and additional photographs of the existing garage submitted by the Applicant (Exhibit E-013). The site is located in the Lakewood Neighborhood Association. It is zoned R-7.5 and is developed with a single-family home. It has frontage on Middlecrest Road (a local street). All of the Development Standards are met, as described in the staff report. All of the R-7.5 Dimensional Standards are met, with the exception of the front yard setback (18' minimum requirement as a steeply sloped lot). The Applicant is requesting an 11' reduction variance to allow for a 7' setback. Major Variance Criteria: A long-standing interpretation is that a 2-car garage is a minimum reasonable use similar to like properties. Criterion 1 is met because there is only a single-car carport in deteriorating condition on the property, and because the physical circumstances on the lot are not self-created. Due to the location and alignment of the existing dwelling, the slope of the lot, and the presence of a number of mature trees in the side and front yards, the Applicant is unable to site a 2-car garage in a way that complies with the front yard setback. Because these physical circumstances create an unnecessary hardship, reasonable use is prevented. Criterion 2 (The request must not be injurious to the neighborhood) is met because the development pattern fits in with nearby properties, and the proposed 2-car garage is similar in appearance and size to the current carport. There is a Condition of Approval (COA) to preserve two nearby large Douglas firs (as outlined in the arborist report). There were four letters submitted in support of the application and none in opposition. Criterion 3 (The request must be the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property) is met because the proposed 22' x 22' garage is standard-sized for two cars, and the garage has been aligned to be 7' from the front yard setback at its closest point, and angled back to an approximate 12' setback. The proposed garage also complies with the side yard setbacks, is about 10' in height, and replicates the location of the existing carport. Staff found that the reduction of 11' was the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property. Staff recommended approval of this application, as conditioned in the staff report. Questions of Staff Vice Chair Arthur asked for a description of the off-street parking requirement for a single- family residential dwelling in Lake Oswego. Ms. Hastay replied that the minimum required is one off-street parking space located outside of required yard setbacks; however, the long- standing practice is that a 2-car garage or carport is a minimum reasonable use for a single- family detached dwelling. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 20, 2021 Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Smith pointed to page 4 of the staff report, asking how constructing the garage increased the non-conformance. Ms. Hastay noted that degree of non-conformance was increased because the Applicant was taking an open carport out to construct a larger enclosed garage. Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager, added that approving the variance would be the remedy to bring it in conformance. Ms. Hastay informed DRC members that both paths (enclosing the existing carport or tearing down the carport to construct a garage)would have required a Major Variance. Commissioner Smith asked for confirmation that with the current structure being 5' from the setback, the new garage, at a 7' setback, would be more conforming. Ms. Hastay affirmed this. Chair Shearer asked if the current carport complied with the 15' setback. Ms. Hastay responded in the negative, noting that Exhibit E-002 showed that the current carport was located within 5' of the front property line and was projecting into the side yard setback. Commissioner Silen inquired whether there was any consideration given to placing the new structure elsewhere on the lot. Ms. Hastay pointed members to Exhibit E-012, which showed an alternate location for one parking space that complied with the setbacks; however, the construction of a single-car garage in that location would require the removal of at least two Douglas firs and extensive grading. Commissioner Silen then asked if there was a way the garage could be behind the dwelling. Ms. Hastay stated that this was not possible due to the alignment, location, and width of the home, and because of the grades. Applicant Testimony Melissa Schulz, with Schulz Design and representina the Applicant (who purchased the property in December 2020). stated she was hired to look at the existing site to determine how to deal with the trees, the grading, and the dilapidated carport. She noted that the slab below the carport was cracking along the side setback. The trees have been sapping all over the second car owned by the Applicant. To preserve the trees, they decided to pull the proposed garage closer to the house. The street has no on-street parking available. The homes on the other side of the street are also nonconforming to the front setback (graphics were shown depicting this claim). They will move the new concrete slab away from the base of the sapping trees. They will mimic the lines of the house to give it a better street presence. Statements from the letters in favor were read into the record. Questions of Applicant Commissioner Berardi asked if an additional drainage system would be needed to divert water around the garage. Ms. Schulz affirmed that they would continue to work with the City's stormwater management team, adding that they were not adding much to the impervious surface area. Chair Shearer requested confirmation that the fir trees would remain (looking at the proposed design concept). Ms. Schulz replied that the trees were removed from the rendering only to give a better view of the proposed garage. Deliberation Mr. Boone asked if anyone wished to submit additional evidence, which would result in a continuance, if requested, or if the Applicant wished to submit a final written argument. There were no such requests made. Mr. Boone then indicated that Chair Shearer may move to deliberations. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 20, 2021 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Berardi stated that he supported the project, as many of the garages in the neighborhood were up against the street. Vice Chair Arthur opined that it was a thoughtfully-designed, well-planned proposal, and that it would be a welcome addition to the streetscape, thus, was in support of the application. Commissioner Silen moved to approve LU 21-0036, as presented in the staff report. Seconded by Commissioner Smith and passed 6:0. Mr. Boone instructed staff to return the Written Findings, Conclusion and Order on Monday, October 4, 2021, at 6:00pm. OTHER BUSINESS Schedule Review and Management Update Ms. Numanoglu updated DRC members on upcoming meetings: October 4, 2021 will have the Findings from this meeting and the approval of Minutes. October 18, 2021 will have one agenda item. November 1, 2021 will have one agenda item. ADJOURNMENT Chair Shearer adjourned the meeting at 7:39 PM. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kat Kluge, Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 20, 2021 Page 4 of 4