HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2022-03-21 PM
Development Review Commission Minutes
March 21, 2022 Page 1 of 6
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Development Review Commission Minutes
March 21, 2022
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, Kirk Smith, Mark Silen, Craig Berardi, and Bruce
Poinsette
Members absent: Vice Chair Randy Arthur (recused himself from the hearing) and Dwight
Sangrey
Staff present: Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City
Attorney; Evan Fransted, Senior Planner; and Kat Kluge, Administrative
Support
MINUTES
March 7, 2022 Minutes
There were no corrections noted. Commissioner Silen moved to approve the Minutes for March 7,
2022, as written. Seconded by Commissioner Berardi and passed 3:0, with 2 abstentions.
PUBLIC HEARING
LU 21-0060: An appeal of a staff decision approving a minor park improvement to replace an
existing picnic shelter (near Furnace and Green Streets) and to remove two vine maples for
construction.
**This hearing was cancelled because both Appellants withdrew their appeals on 03/11/2022.**
LU 21-0075: A request for a 6-lot subdivision and the removal of 12 trees.
This site is located at 3811 Carman Drive (21E05CD10600). The Staff Coordinator is Evan
Fransted, Senior Planner.
Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, gave an overview of the public hearing process, outlined the
applicable criteria and procedures, and gave instructions for testimony.
Mr. Boone asked DRC members to declare any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases, or
financial conflicts. All DRC members present declared they have no ex parte contacts, conflicts of
interest, and no bias. There were no challenges to the Commissioners’ rights to consider the
application.
Development Review Commission Minutes
March 21, 2022 Page 2 of 6
Staff Report
Evan Fransted, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Fransted entered a letter into the
record (Exhibit G-100) that was received in support of the application after the publication of the
staff report.
The site is approximately 1.25 acres in size, with frontage on Carman Drive and Wilmot Way, and
is zoned R-5. Surroundings properties to the north, east, and west are also zoned R-5 and are
developed with single-family dwellings. The properties to the south are zoned R-3 and developed
with a Senior-Living facility. The site is currently developed with a single-family dwelling and a
detached garage. The site slopes in elevation from 346 feet at the southwest corner at Carman
Drive to 364 feet at the northeast corner at Wilmot Way.
There are 63 trees that are 6-inch or greater diameter on the site or along the frontage in the right-
of-way (ROW).
The preliminary plat shows all 6 lots being 5,000 square feet or greater in size. The minimum
density for the site is 5 lots and the maximum density for the site is 9 lots. The proposal meets the
minimum and maximum density requirements. Lot 6 includes a single-family dwelling, known as
the "Carman House," which is designated as a Historic Landmark on the City's Landmark List. In
November, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) approved the reduction of the size of
the "Carman House" Historic Landmark site to 21,185 square feet (shown as Lot 6 of the
proposed subdivision). No exterior alterations or changes are proposed to the "Carman House,"
rather, it will be given to the Lake Oswego Preservation Society (LOPS) after approval of the
subdivision.
The site plan shows that Lots 1 through 3 will front Carman Drive, while Lots 4 through 6 are "flag"
lots because they do not front a public street (Wilmot Way is a private access lane). Lots 1 and 2
have a shared driveway approach that splits into individual driveways on each lot. Lots 3 through
5 will take access via a proposed shared access lane onto Carman Drive. Two parking spaces are
provided for Lots 4 and 5, located within the access lane. The Engineering staff found that the
access lane proposal is adequate, addressing the topography and traffic volume. Lot 6 will take
access from its existing driveway on Wilmot Way. The Engineering staff concurs with the findings
of the preliminary sight-distance certification analysis for the 2 access points on Carman Drive
(safe entrance and exit is possible, with the Condition of Approval (COA) that requires that
vegetation or other obstructions within the clear-sight triangles be removed). Another COA
requires that the entire sidewalk along the Carman Drive frontage be lowered to match the public
street grade, and that the iron handrail at the street curb be removed to improve pedestrian safety.
Lot 4 abuts the rear yard of the property to the west (14591 Pfeifer Way), whose dwelling is set
back approximately 20 feet from the abutting property line. Lots 4 and 5 abut the side yard of the
property to the north (14431 Orchards Spring Road), whose dwelling is set back approximately 21
feet. The Applicant is providing a 7.5 side yard on Lot 4's west side and 20-foot rear yards on Lots'
4 and 5 on the north side. Six-foot fencing will be provided along the side and rear lot lines of Lots
4 and 5, along with a 6-foot-wide landscape buffer (hedging and a row of mitigation trees) along
the rear lot lines of Lots 4 and 5. A row of mitigation trees will also be provided along the west lot
line of Lot 6. A COA requires a revised landscape plan that shows an added 6-foot landscaping
buffer along the south lot line of Lot 6. Staff finds that the future dwellings on Lots 4 and 5 will
provide comparable setbacks to the abutting properties, which will provide maximum separation
and privacy.
The site plan shows that the configuration of Lots 4 and 5 will allow new dwellings to have the
front of the house oriented towards the access lane. The structures on flag lots cannot exceed the
Development Review Commission Minutes
March 21, 2022 Page 3 of 6
average height of all of the dwellings abutting development site, or 22 feet, whichever is taller. The
Applicant provided a survey of the height of the dwellings on the 3 abutting lots, with an average
height of 24.83 feet, resulting in a maximum height of 24.83 feet for structures on the flag lots. The
existing "Carman House" has a height of 28.52 feet, but the applicant demonstrated compliance
with an allowable adjustment of 15% to the height for an existing dwelling, which allows a height
of up to 28.55 feet. The “Carman House” complies with this adjusted height.
The Applicant is proposing to remove 12 trees in order to construct site improvements (grading for
the access lane and utilities). The Applicant will also apply, separately from this application, for the
removal of 10 trees under the Invasive Tree and Type I Tree Removal permits. Staff finds that all
12 trees requested for removal are within the area of proposed development, thereby meeting
Type II Tree Removal, Criterion 1. The Applicant provided an arborist report that states that the
removal will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, or flow of surface
waters because all onsite runoff will be managed by an erosion control plan. No nearby trees will
experience wind-throw impact because the trees proposed for removal are relatively small in
diameter, and isolated from the trees that will remain. Only 1 of the 12 trees proposed for removal
is over 15 inches in diameter (a 24-inch English elm tree, located in the access lane on Lot 3, in
the interior of the property and blocked from view by trees along the property's frontage). This tree
is not found to be significant. Staff finds no reasonable alternative to the removal of all 12
trees. The Applicant is required to plant 12 mitigation trees as a COA (one of which must be a
native tree).
In conclusion, staff recommends approval of LU 21-0075, subject to the COAs listed in the staff
report.
Questions of Staff
There were no questions of staff.
Applicant Testimony
Danelle Isenhart, Owner of Isenhart Consulting, LLC, and the Applicant's Representative, stated
that they agreed with the staff reports and its COAs and findings. She noted that the front lot lines
of Lots 1 through 3 were adjusted to 20 feet, to account for the ROW. They propose to keep the
retaining wall along the Carman Drive frontage for Lot 3, while complying with the COA to lower
the sidewalk along the Carman Drive frontage. Ms. Isenhart read the following notes from the
slides regarding the responses to public comments received: setbacks for Lots 3 and 4 meet the
R-5 Zone minimum setbacks and specific house designs were unknown; Tree #10022 could be
added with Tree #10021 to the Invasive Tree Removal permit application when submitted;
stormwater from the development was designed to be treated on-site, with COAs requiring further
drainage and geotechnical reports during future steps of the process; a 6-foot tall fence will be
installed along the west lot line for Lot 4 to block car lights as it enters the access lane; mitigation
tree species will be selected from the City's list of approved trees; and the Applicant found no
utilities within the 15-foot easement that is requested to be removed, as the properties to the north
and west are fully developed, having access to utilities along their street frontages.
Questions of Applicant
Commissioner Smith asked what type of easement was mentioned. Ms. Isenhart replied that it
was a utility easement. Commissioner Smith then asked who is the easement for. Ms. Isenhart
stated that she did not know who it was for, as it had been there for a very long time.
Chair Shearer inquired what staff found during review of the easement. Mr. Fransted relayed that
Development Review Commission Minutes
March 21, 2022 Page 4 of 6
the Engineering staff looked at the public utility easement and found that it was intended for future
development that was never installed, and that new easements for the proposed development
would be created for the installation of water, sewer, et cetera; adding that it was not addressed in
the staff report because the easement did not contain anything and was on private property.
Commissioner Smith recommended pulling the Title report, which would show the name of the
easement holder. Mr. Boone added that there was a process to vacate a public utility easement
and that the Applicant would have the burden to develop on the site around the easement if it was
privately owned.
Commissioner Silen asked if the size of the easement would reduce the overall lot size, making it
non-compliant with the minimum 5,000 square foot size requirement. Mr. Boone stated that it
would not affect the overall size of the lot, as that was based on the lot boundary.
Public Testimony
In Support
Jon Gustafson, 111 Ladd Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, President of the Lake Oswego
Preservation Society (LOPS), relayed that LOPS was in support of this application. He thanked
the property owner and the developer for working with them and with other members of the
community on what they believe to be a very good outcome for this site. He stated that the
"Carman House" was important to not only Lake Oswego's history, but to the whole state's history,
and that they worked hard to maintain the neighborhood character around this property. He noted
that LOPS also agreed with the recommended COAs.
In Opposition
Ruth Bregar, 17 Hillshire Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, Co-Chair of the Westridge
Neighborhood Association, but speaking on her own behalf (appeared via Zoom), noted that she
had no vested interest in the property, nor did she live anywhere near it. She stated that she
opposed the development because she would like to see both the house and the land saved. She
relayed that she watched a lecture by Thompson Mayes, Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel
of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and author of "Why Historic Places Matter," a few
months ago. Her takeaway was the point that not only do the large mansions matter but also the
humble homes and buildings, as it was important to honor the families (and their memories) that
these homes belonged to. She then quoted several passages from Mr. Mayes' book. Ms. Bregar
then pointed to the 2015 Oregon State Supreme Court ruling to protect both the "Carman House"
and the property on which it stood, and how she did not understand how the property was now
deemed to be not part of that historic parcel. She asked members to save the family's legacy of
both the house and the 1.25 acres of land the house sat on. She acknowledged that prior heirs of
the Carman's sold off most of the original 300-plus acres of property, and that this proposal saved
the house and placed it in the ownership of the Lake Oswego Preservation Society. Ms. Bregar
asked if the Applicant looked at all possible solutions to save both the house and the land, as
there must be something that could be done. She urged members to step outside of the checked
boxes to look at whether this proposal was the right thing to do.
John Robinson, 14600 Pfeifer Way, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (appeared via Zoom), stated that he
was in opposition of the proposal; however, his position could be changed to neutral if some of the
mitigating factors were addressed. He noted that he owned the property that backed up to Lot 3
and he also represents his neighbors that own the property that backs up to Lot 4. He requested
that Trees #10021 and #10022 be removed, as they encroached on their property lines and fence.
He shared their concerns over water runoff and over the birds, animals, and rodents migrating to
their properties during the construction phase, adding that their greatest concern was over privacy
issues due to the higher grade on the Carman property.
Development Review Commission Minutes
March 21, 2022 Page 5 of 6
Commissioner Berardi asked Mr. Robinson whether he had talked to the developer, and if so,
what type of response was received. Mr. Robinson replied that his wife contacted the developer
but had not received any response.
Applicant Rebuttal
Ms. Isenhart informed Mr. Robinson that she would be willing to have a discussion with him, and
that she tried to address some of their concerns during her initial presentation. She noted that the
easement was discussed during the pre-application conference and that Todd [City Engineering
staff] informed them that the City could release their interest in the easement; however, the
Applicant would need to verify with all franchise utility companies that it could be quit-claimed from
their perspective.
Commissioner Silen asked Ms. Isenhart to address the ownership of the land and the State's
ruling to keep the house and land together. Mr. Gustafson replied that it was about the overall
designation of the property at that time (including the "Carman House"). He added that the Court
never took into consideration the difference between the lot sizes for Lot A and Lot B, rather, they
only addressed and denied removing the Historic designation of the property, as a whole. He then
relayed that the HRAB hearing addressed whether the overall lot size played into the historic
value of the house, with the finding that the remaining land was not critical to retaining the
importance of the historic "Carman House." Mr. Boone explained the purpose of HRAB and the
application that went before, adding that the boundaries of the landmark had been defined and
was not before the Commission.
Commissioner Berardi requested that Ms. Isenhart reach out to Mr. Robinson. Ms. Isenhart
agreed to do so.
Deliberations
Mr. Boone asked if anyone wished that the record be left open to submit additional evidence or if
the Applicant wished to submit final written argument. There were no such requests, nor did the
Applicant wish to submit final written argument. Mr. Boone instructed Chair Shearer to proceed to
deliberations.
Commissioner Silen stated that he was in favor of the application, as it stood.
Commissioner Smith opined that the developer and the family had done a good job in trying to
balance the historic home, to preserve it, and in making an economic decision to move forward
with the project. Based on this, he noted his support of the application, as submitted.
Commissioner Berardi noted that he was sympathetic with Ms. Bregar; however, he also
understood the great need for housing and that the land would be used by families and kids who
could run around, even more-so than if the land was left in one piece. He acknowledged that the
staff did a good job outlining how the City codes had been met, which was why he was in favor.
Commissioner Poinsette relayed that, given all of the information presented, he was in favor.
Commissioner Smith moved to approve LU 21-0075, as submitted and conditioned. Seconded
by Commissioner Poinsette and passed 5:0. Mr. Boone instructed staff to return the Written
Findings, Conclusion, and Order on Monday, April 4, 2022, at 6:00 PM.
Commissioner Berardi moved to hold the next meeting at 6:00 PM. Seconded by Commissioner
Smith and passed 5:0.
Development Review Commission Minutes
March 21, 2022 Page 6 of 6
SCHEDULE REVIEW AND MANAGEMENT UPDATE
Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager, updated DRC members on upcoming meetings:
April 6, 2022 has the Findings from this meeting and a review of the Minutes.
Ms. Numanoglu then relayed that there were no other hearings currently scheduled; however,
there were 3 to 4 applications that were incomplete but could be scheduled at any point and that
she would keep the Commissioners apprised.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Shearer adjourned the meeting at 7:52 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Kat Kluge, Administrative Support