Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1991-12-02 �p tlt °° ,+ 1, u 14 l • FLAKE 0SWEGO PLANNING DEP'T, FILES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES • • • • 11 • 11 • • • • • • • • • • .1" J It a r „CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SQARD MINUTES DECEIVIBE .2, 1991. I i 1 _ l[. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board.meeting of December 2)1991,was called to order by Chairman Foster at 7:30 p.m. IL ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr.Bloomer,Mr. Starr,Ms.Remy,Mr.Foster,and Mr. Stanaway, Mr.Greaves and Mr. Sievert were excused. Also present were Robert Galante,Senior Planner;Michael Wheeler,Associate Planner; Cindy Phillips,Assistant City Attorney; and Barbara Anderson, Secretary, i` III APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Foster moved for a L ►1 Ye �;K.� ,4/991 utes (F rst Vote'). Ms. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Stanaway,Mr.Foster and Ms, Remy voting yes. Mr. Bloomer and Mr4.Starr abstained. `t illMs,Reilly mEroved for 91 Minutes(EikstYotel. Mr. .,) Foster seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Foster,Ms. Retry and Mr. Bloomer' voting yes, Mr. Stanaway and Mr. Starr abstained. e. Mr. Stanaway moved for nJI Lst .ik„inlie 3. 1991.Mintttes(Second Vote). Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Stanaway, Ms. Remy,Mr.Starr and Mr. Bloomer voting yes. Mr. Foster abstained. IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Memorandum Regarding AP 91-7 (Warner)and AP 9.1-$(Wood); Two,Appeals of SD 54-90(Smith) The Board noted that the case had already been heard, Mr.Wheeler acknowledged that the case had in fact been heard on October 7, 1991; however, he explained that the City, Attorney had reviewed the conduct of that hearing and determined that a procedural error had occurred that needed t,o be remedied.,lilr..Wheeler explained that the information included in the Board's agenda packet pertaining to the case was only for informational purposes. He notified the Board that a public,hearing had been scheduled , for December 16 991, Chairman Feaster noted that there was rrtO action to be taken by the Board at this time. V. PUBLIC HEARING -' —' —' , a request by Consulting Engineering Services for 411 approval of a lot line adjustment between Lots 2 and 3+af Block 54,Mt.Park resulting 12/02/91 D12B Minutes 0 -, Page 1 of 5 t3 O ' in two parccls,each 8,803 sq,ft:and 15,268 sq,ft,in size;the applicant is also 1 requesting a 10 ft,Class 2 variance to the front yard setback required by thesMountain Park Planned Unit D velopment,Phase 5- (Oidh No, 1A�18)►and the ap licant is, socking,site.plan approval of a secondary dwelling unit as allowed by L �48,195(9) and required by I=49.300(2). The applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling,covered vehicle entry and a secondary dwelling unit on the adjusted Lot 3, Block 54,Mountain Park Blocks 45-57. The site is located on the north,loop of S.W. Nansen Summit on the sonth side of the toad(Lots 2 843,Block 54,Mt.Park, ,. ' , tyMap ) oo pe!R."ipeel�err M4 sociate lP'1 0 Tax #A225 . Staff c rdinator is Chairman Foster discussed the hearing procedure and timelines for testimony. He asked the Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Hearing none,he asked for the staff presentation, Mr.Wheeler discussed the proposal, He explained that there wort three components to the proposal. He noted that the lot line adjustment and request for a secondary dwelling o unit each satisfied the criteria requirements, Mr. Wheeler indicated that there appeared to be no justification for the deck above the entry porch and that all of the variance criteria had not been meet, He concluded that staff recommended approval of the lot line adjustment and the secondary dwelling. Mr, Wheeler indicated that unless the applicant demonstrated that all of the variance criteria could L c met he would recommend denial of the variance request. John Godsey,consultingggiteing,Se 40 Beaverton,97 , He discussed the lot line adjustment and secondary dwelling request,explaining how each met the applicable criteria. Mr. Godsey stated that a 10' variance to the front yard was necessary because of the topography of the site, He indicated that the principle use of the portico is for a covered walkway and that the deck was only an incidental use. Mr.Godsey referred the Board to Exhibit 8 to get a better ' idea of the dimensions of the structure that would be within the setback. He submitted photos to the Board to demonstrate like structures and satisfy the variance criteria. Mr, Godsey indicated that there was a hardship because the applicant had the ability to construct over 60% of the portico within the setbacks. He indicated that the deck above i ' the portico was an ancillary use. He noted that another hardship would be denied access to the end of the portico for maintei'once purposes, Mr,C3odsey noted that the request for the variance was the minimum necessary, He explained that the portico was necessary for safety access to the residence. He indicated that because of the elevation of the site the northwest weather would citato unsafe situations, go,9703$stated that he has had the property for about 5 years,trying to decide what to do with it. He indicated that a lot of tought had gone into the design. He indicated that his current residence had four levels and numerous starts, Mr Morissette stated that this house was designed to minimize the number of stairs. He mentioned that he had discussed the design of the proposed house with several of his neighbors and the neighborhood association, Mr,Morissette indicated that the Mt.Park Home Owners Association had approved the.design of the house and there was 100%support from the neighbors le had contacted. Proponents 4110 paid.Sweeney,20 Nallstinjiummiti Lake Oswego,9703I stated that"he had appreciated Mr.Morissette taking the time to discuss his proposal with the , 12/02/91 O1111 Minutes vt; Page 2of 5 , ;t , e t,,, , ,, neighborhood, He indicated that the proposed home would be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Mr.Sweeney commented that the variance request would not have any visual impact on any of the adjacent residents. r" a o►970 t stated that he was in support of `�� the project. He mentioned that it would be a splendid architectural statement for the neighborhood. Mrs Paul indicated that a portico was a necessity for the area.and that were other porticos in the neighborhood. Ray Jerby,11 N concurred.with the other proponents. He stated that the structure was a very attractive plan for the neighborhood, Opponents Gretchen Brooks,4 Courtney,Stptnmit,Lake Qs ,,:971L ,;vas concerned about the lot line adjustment. She discussed the character of the neighborhood with the big lots and narrow streets, Ms Brooks indicated that the ittt 'ie would be lost if the variance request was granted and the streets would seem narrower. She was concerned about the noise from the deck above the portico, '�`ttrr�'Ttortameli.89 t aribaldi nke sw nn� 703S was concerned about the portico,„ He indicated that the lot was six feet above grade and the portico would be constructed above that. Mr.Rommell mentioned that the house across the street was only setback one foot from the property line. He noted that by allowing the portico,which would be 10 feet from the property line,the street would1be very restricted, Mr.rtoimmell was also concerned that by allowing the lot line adjustment the parcel would be large enough to divided in the future 1;. NclihntRFaXStnN'inn red 0 Ned Kirschbaum,12587$orest Meadows,Lake.,Oswego,974$4 stated that given the size of the house and the size of the lot a portico could be designed to be constructed Hithin the setbacks. He questioned whether or not the portico could actually provide any safety from the elements when it was only 10 feet wide,. 1- Rebuftui ,) Mr.Godsey,stated that the majority of the structure was 33 to 34 feet from the property line, therefore, the mass of the structure was.back front the roadway, He indicated that there were reasons for varying the setbacks in the Mt. Park area because of the topography. He reiterated that fact that the portico was proposed as a safety factor, ]ion.Morissette stated that he did not have any intention to create three lots out of two, )) He indicated that the lot line adjustment was necessary to facilitate the design of the proposed dwelling, Mr.Morissette mentioned that he had tried other designs for the portico; however,this design seemed to have the!east impact on the area, I r Deliberation, During the hearing,the Board received the following exhibits in support of the application: 0 Exhibits 34—39 Photographs (locations not identified Exhibit 40 Letter from L.Thompson,dated July'18, 1991 Exhibit 41, Petition with 11 signatures,dated December 1991 12/02191 nn Minutes Page 3 of 5 Exhibit 42 Letter from D.Whitfield,dated t)ccember 2, 1991 Exhibit.,45 e Map of Mt.Park reflecting support,dated December 2, 1991 Regarding the proposed covered vehicle entry,the Board found that the applicant had not adequately demonstrated thepresence of a hardship in the narrative(Exhibit 2)nor in oral testimony at the hearing. '`The Board found that the applicant's suggested hardship(i.e.,pedestrian and entry and vehicular safety for residents and visitors)was not a hardship,but instead a matter of convenience for the applicant. 1 Regarding the proposed recreational deck atop the vehicle entry covi r,the Board found that the applicant had not demonstrated the presence of a hardship in the narrative (Exhibit 2)nor in oral testimony at the hearing: The Board found no evidence in the record demonstrating that a deck must be located within 10 feet of the front property line to prevent an unnecessary hardship. The Board found that the applicant was capable of designing the proposed covered vehicle entry and a recreational deck to comply with re uired yards(setbacks). The Board found that the aptapplicant had not explored alternative designs to achieve compliance with the setack requirements, Ms.Remy moved for approval of SD25-91/DR 1Z-91. Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Stanaway,Ms. Remy and Mr, Starr all voting yes. Mr. Foster and Mr Bloomer voted no. Ms. Remy moved for detual of V. tZ I 9i. Mr.Starr seconded th motion and it passed with Mr.Stanaway,Ms. Remy and Mr. Starr all voting yes. Mr.Foster and Mr. Bloomer voted no. 4111 VI. GENERAL PLANNING Vtt. OTHER 111 SINESS-Findings,Conclusions and Order Ms. Remy moved for approval of PRCS 9L- U8(p'lrst'hotel,Findings,Conclusions and Order. Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Remy,Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. Mr. Stanaway and MI..Foster abstained. Ms.Remy moved for approval of DR 6-91.909( 'ijrst*Vote),Findings,Conclusions and Order. Mr. Starr seconded the'motion and it passed with Ms.Remy,Mr.Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. Mr. Stanaway and Mr. Foster abstained. Mr, Foster moved for approval of - - . ,Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Foster,Mr. Bloomer and Mr, Starr all voting yes. Mr. Stanaway and Ms. Remy abstained. Mr.Starr moved for approval of D1111.J421 ( ;irst Vote),Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr.Foster seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway,Mr.Foster and Mr. Starr all voting yes. Ms. Remy and Mr.Bloomer I abstained. ill t' 0 12/02/9 0 DRB Minutes g , - ,, VIII. AD!O 'RNM CENT There being no further business before the Development Review)3onrd,'Chair►nan Foster adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p,mi. Respectfully Submitted Barbara Anderson Senior Secretary , 11111110 It j c. 0 ' 12/02/9, 1 D*f3 Minutes Page 5 of