HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1978-02-08 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING, February 8, 1978.
•
The Design Review Board meeting of February 8, 1978 was called to order by Chairman
{ Kirk Nieland. Board members in attendance were: Glenn Chilcote, Bob Perron,
Dave Pugh, Gary Rittenhouse and Bob Stark. Staff members present were: Ralph
Tahran, Planner Ii ; Alex Arseniev, Assistant City Engineer and Nancy Bryan, Secretary,
Minutes of the January 18, 1978 meeting were approved.
Chairman Mieland announced that DR 2-78 (Century 21 Homes, Inc. ) had been withdrawn
from tonight's meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VAR 3-78 (Loren L. Holmberg) - A request by Loren L. Holmberg for a Variance from
the code requirement of 25 feet access width on a street to allow a 20-foot width
on Summit Drive. Also a lot size variance is requested to allow a residence to be
constructed on a. 7031 square foot lot in an R-7.5 Zone. The property fronts on
Summit Drive (tax lot 101 of tax map 2 lE 9BD) .
Ralph Tahran explained the problem connected with this variance. At the last meeting
three variances had been approved, but only one had been advertised. Legally, the
other two variances had to be advertised and approved again.
After a brief discussion by staff and Board members, Gary Rittenhouse moved for
illapproval of the variances. Dave Pugh seconded the motion. Dave Pugh, Gary Rittenhouse,
Kirk Nieland and Bob Stark voted in favor of the motion. Glenn Chilcote and
Bob Perron abstained from voting; they had not been at the last hearing and were not
familiar with the request.
VAR 2-78 (Linda Terhark-Aebi) - A request by Linda Terhaik-Aebi for a variance from
the five-foot side yard setback requirement in an R-7.5 Zone to allow remodeling
of an existing residence to extend 3'9" into the side yard on a lot fronting on
Lake View Blvd. approximately 100 feet west of its intersection with Springbrook
Drive (tax lot 4400 of tax map 2 lE 8DA) .
The staff report and exhibits were presented by Ralph Tahran. Staff recommended
denial of this proposal to preserve property rights of surrounding owners, since
there appeared to be other design alternatives that could meet the applicant' s
objectives and code requirements.
Fred Aebi , applicant of 2858 Lakeview Blvd. , spoke. He mentioned that he had been
before the Board a year or so ago and was granted a variance to build the deck on
the front side of the house. The applicant now wanted to enclose the open porch
on the side of the house and extend a walkway on the side to meet the existing deck.
Mr. Aebi entered Exhibit "I", applicant' s photos of the proposed deck area. He
said he felt the staff recommendation was no solution for them; in fact, it was
incompatible for what they want to do. He pointed out. on Exhibit "C"' where the
proposed fireplace apparently caused problems for the neighbors, the Moshofskys.
lir The setbacks on this property were a problem for any remodeling project.
Design Review Board Meeting -2- February 8, 1978
• Ralph Tahran explained the discussion with the neighbors, the Moshofskys. They
don' t want the walkway, almost on the Property line, on their side of the house.
Ralph stated the variance request seemed like a convenience issue more than a
hardship issue. Kirk Nieland mentioned that the Aebis could enclose the porch
without the need for a variance.
Fred Aebi said he wanted to enclose the access to eliminate dry rot and water
problems. The deck would be an access way, not a living space.
Hal Bahls, architect of 1100 S.W. 6th in Portland, spoke. He felt it Was not c,
solution to go down steps from the deck to get to the yard and then go back up
steps to get to the lakeside front of the house. They wanted to extend the side
walkway no wider than the present deck and have access, to the lake side of the
house.
Opposition
Ed Murphy, attorney for the Moshofskys (next door neighbors) , of Onc S.W. Columbia
in Portland, spoke. Mr. Murphy stated the Moshofskys didn' t want to get in a fight
with their neighbors. He presented Exhibit "J", pictures of the subject property
and adjoining property. Mr, Murphy stated that the Moshofskys didn' t want more
invasion of their privacy and felt the side walkway, almost on the property line,
would do that.
Rebuttal
Fred Aebi stated he felt the code requirements were to maintain certain relationships
between houses, and the relationship was preserved here. His house was not any
nearer than 10 feet from the Moshofsky house. Other sideyard setbacks in this
same area have been ignored in the past.
Kirk Nieland stated that when encroachment on the setbacks exists, to continue the
encroachment because it already exists i$ not necessarily acceptable. Kirk
mentioned that staff felt this was a variance for convenience rather than for hardship.
Public hearing portion of the testimony was closed.
Gary Rittenhouse stated he felt there Were other solutions to the problem. He felt
the deck would only encourage traffic around that side of the house.
Dave Pugh suggested Mr. Aebi get together with his architect, the Moshofskys and
their attorney and come up with a solution that would allow the Moshofskys their
privacy. Perhaps design an outside wall , so no one could be seen from the deck--
Put screening up very high. That type of arrangement would be a definite upgrading
of what is there now.
Glenn Chilcote stated that the variance request would invade the privacy of the
neighbors, and the code is trying to avoid that. It appeared to Glenn that there
should be enough room after the kitchen enlargement to provide a passage through
the house without an outside projection by bringing the deck all the way around.
Aft Kirk Nieland stated that the general mood of the Board was for denial as there
appeared to be other solutions, It would be best to explore the potential solutions.
Design Review Board Meeting 3 February 8, i978
Aft Ed Murphy asked if the Board could vote on the variance request now. Then if the
Aebis and the Moshofskys could work out a solution, they would come back before
the Board.
Kirk mentioned the two possible solutions suggested by the Board. 1) Enclose the
porch, leaving off the side walkway, requiring no variance. 2) Come back with a
solution that could be lived with by both parties, requiring a variance.
Dave Pugh moved to table the decision on VAR 2-78 request, with the understanding
that the applicant could not come back to the Board until a solution was worked out
that was satisfactory to both the applicant and the neighbors. Bob Stark seconded
the motion.
Glenn Chilcote asked for discussion. He felt by tabling the decision, the Board
was putting the neighbor at some disadvantage -the neighbor must then work something
out. Glenn felt it was the applicant' s job to talk with the neighbor and come up
with the best solution within the existing conditions of the code. By denying the
variance, the neighbor had a definite voice on what would happen.
Motion to table the decision was passed. Voting in favor of the motion were:
Kirk Nieland, Bob Perron, Dave Pugh and Bob Stark. Voting against the motion were
L Glenn Chilcote and Gary Rittenhouse,
DR 43-77 (Ashram Builders) A resubmitted request by Ashram Builders for a preliminary
O design review to allow 3' garden 'apartment units to be constructed in the Mountain
Park Development, Phase IV, on property fronting on Eagle Crest Drive directly
below the apartments presently under construction at the top of the hill
(Block 15, SE4 Sec. 32 IS 1E) .
Ralph Tahran presented the staff report and exhibits. Staff recommended approval
of the project, but felt a parking ratio that approaches a 2.5 spaces per unit
would be necessary to serve the tenants and guests. t
Alex Arseniev read his Public Works staff report. It appeared that the slope was
24% toward the northeast. Alex went through all the points on the report and
indicated the trouble spots on a colored Exhibit "H". The southern ingress and
egress was viable.
Bob Evenson, architect of 510 N.W. Third in Portland, addressed the Board. He
presented Exhibit "I", applicant's revised parking plan. This plan showed proposed
parking on two corners of the common property. The applicant had not yet approached
Mt. Park Homeowners on this possibility.
Bob Evenson went through the points listed in the Public Works report. He said if
there were a better configuration for fire truck access on the lower side of the
project, they were willing to work with the staff. The applicant felt it was better
to enter the site in the middle of the curve on Eagle Crest Drive. Bob asked
if the Board felt strongly about the concept of the project, either for or against,
There was agreement by the Board, members that they approved the concept of the
project.
Design Review Board Meeting -4- February 8, 1978
Bob Evenson showed an aerial photo with the building sites imposed on it to show
IIIP the density of the trees. They were trying to maintain a visual screen all the
way around the site. They intend to plant many trees for those taken out plus
putting in ground cover. Bob indicated where the bottom two units were taken out
and parking spaces were put in their place. On the revised parking plan, Exhibit '�l►�
there were 83 parking spaces a 2.44 spaces/unit ratio.
Glenn Chilcote mentioned that he was concerned about the parking encroaching on the
common property. pave PughWanted to know how many cars could be parked oh the site
without going into the common property; the answer was 72 cars. Glenn said he
Was bothered over the 50-75% loss of trees on the site. Bob Perron said if more
than 1/3 of the total root zone (from drip line) was distrubed, you would lose the
tree. Bob Evenson said he felt the saving of questionable trees was the responsi-
bility of the person who was doing the grading.
Glenn Chilcote asked Bob Evenson how he felt about the density. Bob replied he
thought the solution should be the measure of whether the project was right or
wrong for the site and not just pure numbers. ' You should look at what is there
and the result."` Bob then asked what the Board would accept as appropriate
density for this site. Glenn Chilcote stated he would like to see the, site free
so the architect could design it down to the exact placement, of the parking.
Dave Pugh stated problems with the site were density, the amount of grading and the
amount of coverage of parking on the site, Dave thought 2.5 was a realistic ratio
for parking, He would like to see a ratio of units that did not exceed the units.
If you had 72 cars on the site, you would have 30 units, excluding the parking
Splanned for the common area}
Fred Payne stated the original concept of this piece of property was for 42 units
They had reduced the number of units to 34. They now had 22 two-bedroom units
and 12 three-bedroom units. Fred felt the common property could be used for
parking by guests.
Bob Perron said the applicant would have to weigh the factor of what the site
constraints were based upon what would be the reasonable number of units. It is
a design problem.
Bob Evenson asked the Board to address the problem of the 20%6 grade on the lower
access. The access would not work out for a. fire truck--the turning radius was
not large enough. Fred Payne asked if the Board way saying no access from the
lower level because fire trucks couldn't get in, Would it be acceptable to use
for passenger cars?
Glenn Chilcote said he would approve of an ingress and egress for passenger cars.
at the lower level . The fire trucks would then be forced to use the upper level
ingress.
Kirk Nieland asked if the driveway could be flattened to decrease the limitations
of the slope. Could it be 15%? Bob Evenson then asked if they could arrive at
a 15% slope, would that be acceptable to the Board. The Board members stated that
a 15% slope on the lower access would be acceptable to them.
Design Review Board Meeting -5- February 8, 1978
410 Kirk Nieland pointed out some of the problems with this site:
1) access problem on the one side of the site
2) Parking ratio
3) tree situation
4) what is the density.
Glenn Chilcote brought up the question of what is a unit and the minutes from the
Last hearing on the project. Glenn didn' t think it was the intent of the Board to
ask that the applicant take only two units out--perhaps two buildings.
Fred Payne mentioned the Proper relationship for land coverage to building coverage
and property size. How many trees did the Board want the applicant to save?
Dave Pugh suggested getting a 2:1 ratio for Parking spaces and the applicant would
end up with 30 units. That would be a good scheme for this site.
John Baunach, with Ashram Builders, spoke. He stated he felt because they had
bigger units which were taking up more land site, they were being penalized for
wanting to put in a nicer project in Mt. Park.
On the parking ratio, Glenn Chilcote said he would be willing to come down from
2.5 parking spaces per unit to 2: 1 with 30 units on the site.
Gary Rittenhouse moved to table a decision on DR 43-77, preliminary, design review
until the March 22 meeting. Bob Perron seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
The applicant was told that he had the following guidelines to work with;
1 . That they have 30 units.
2. Waive 2.5 parking space ratio for each unit and have 2:1 ratio,
3. The lower access could be used only if the applicant can satisfy Public, Works
that he would have a 15% grade slope.
4. That the applicant eliminate one building.
5. That the applicant try to save 40% of the trees on the site.
DR 1-78 (Caspian Construction Company) - A request by Caspian Construction Company
for a preliminary design review to allow two four-plexes to be constructed on lots
fronting on Cervantes in the Mountain Park PUD (SEA Sec. 31 , Block 42, lots 3 b 6) .
The staff report and exhibits were presented by Ralph Tahran. Staff recommended
approval of the preliminary design review.
Public Works said there was a problem with the drainage. The lots drain down hill ,
onto the site designated for apartments. In the original approval of this phase,
it was stated that the buyer of the apartment site must provide for the drainage
of the four-plex sites that drain that direction. Alex. Arseniev stated that this
must be given in writing when the apartment project comes to the City for approval .
Design Review Board Meeting; -6- February 8, 1978
4111 Jim Haldors of Caspian Construction, 543 Third St. , spoke, He was asked about the
1 : 1 _slope shown on the .plans. Jim stated it occurs only on lot 6 on one side of
the site.
Alex Arseniev said Public Works would ask the applicant to come up a couple of
tenths of a foot to the curb and then down to slope. This would raise the building
up slightly from what was shown in the plan. This request was made by Public Works
partially to, help keep the drainage in the gutter.
Jim Haldors stated the site> wes a sloping one, and they wanted to keep the ground
as natural as possible. The applicant had placed the units as close to the street
as possible so that they could use the flat top portion of the lot.
There was a brief' discussion on the open area under one of the units. It was
suggested that this potential problem be worked out with Public Works, Gary
Rittenhouse cautioned the applicant to work out the landscaping berm with Public
Works. The 1 : 1 slope would have to be terraced to hold up.
Bob Perron said there would need to be a detailed landscaping and irrigation plan
submitted for the final . Jim Haldors stated they would try to hold all the naturai
slopings that were now there. They also wanted to use all the natural vegetation
they could save. Ralph suggested that the applicant bring in pictures showing
the vegetation as it is , and what they meant by "natural' landscaping,
Jim Haldors said the exterior siding on the units would be 6" channel cedar and
40 the roof would be tile.
Glenn Chilcote said there was good spacing around the units with adequate parking
spaces on this project. Glenn moved for approval of preliminary design review on
DR 1-78. Dave Pugh seconded the motion and it passed unanimously..
Kirk Wieland went through the requirements of LOC 50.880 for a preliminary design
II' review. The applicant was asked to bring samples of the colors of siding, trim
and door to the final.
Findings of Fact
1 . The application has met all requirements for LOC 50.880.
OTHER BUSINESS
Bob Campbell had some questions for the Board concerning parking space requirements
in the four-plex area in Mt. Park. He has a lot there and would like to submit
Plans to ORB, but was uncertain as to what , the Board requires.
Design Review Board Meeting 7 February 8, 1978
Kirk Nieland stated that the minimum code parking requirements had proved to be
1 insufficient. It was pointed out that most of the street area on Cervantes would
be taken up'by driveways, leaving very little space for on-street parking. Therefore,
each unit would have to have its own parking plus provide for guests.
Kirk mentioned that a reliance on on-street parking for this density was not a
good Way to go. Density as allowed by the code is affected by the topography of
the site. The Board was attempting to judge each project separately. All of the
projects that the Board had approved have been at 21 spaces per unit based on the
way the project was designed.
There be.in9 no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned
at 11 P.M.
Respectfully `submitted
'71 e
Nancy Bryan, Sec etary
Design Review Board