Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1998-09-21 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION September 21, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Commission meeting of September 21, 1998, was called to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon by Chair Douglas P. Cushing at 7:06 PM. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Cushing, Vice Chair Julie Morales and Commissioners Nan Binkley, Douglas Kiersey and Sheila Ostly. Mr. Horning and Mr. Magura were excused. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Janice Benn, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. IV. PUBLIC HEARING DR 20-96/CU 6-96 II (Remand), the applicant, Harold G. Long Architects, is requesting approval of the following: 1) A conditional use permit to expand an existing church facility; and, 2) A development review approval to construct a two-story parish hall/administrative addition and an one-story nursery expansion. The site is located at 1060 Chandler Road, Tax Lot(s) 6400 and 6500 of Tax Map 21E 3CD. Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner. Chair Cushing announced this hearing had been postponed to October 5, 1998. PD 1-96 (Mod. 7-98), the applicant, The Modish Corp., is requesting approval to modify conditions A(2) and A(5)(b) of PD 1-96, a 10-lot single family residential planned development. These modifications would only affect the approved building setbacks in the project. The site is located South of Green Bluff Dr., East of Crestline Dr., Tax Lot(s) 2200 of Tax Map 21E 15 DA. Staff coordinator is Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager. Chair Cushing opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. Chair Cushing, Ms. Binkley and Ms. Morales recalled they City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 10 Minutes of September 21, 1998 had previously heard the application and were familiar with the site. Chair Cushing reported that he had once negotiated with the applicant on behalf of a property owner on Crestline regarding a right to use a septic permit on one of the applicant's lots. He related the matter had never been resolved and he was no longer representing the property owner. Mr. Kiersey stated that he had no conflict to report and Ms. Ostly reported that she was familiar with the site. Chair Cushing asked if any person in attendance desired to challenge any Commissioner's right to hear the application. No one presented such a challenge. Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, clarified for Ms. Binkley that the applicant had initiated a new application process because he desired to modify setbacks which had been included in conditions of the previous approval. He noted that the previous application had established the building envelopes on the 10 lots in Exhibit 5. Mr. Pishvaie corrected the cover of the staff report to reflect the File No. was PD 1- 96(Mod. 7-98). He submitted two letters for the record: Exhibit 14, a letter from Richard Downey; and Exhibit 15, a letter from Bruce Kerr. He noted approval of the 10-lot subdivision called Skyland Heights had originally been granted in August, 1996; however, it had subsequently been appealed (and upheld) by the City Council and the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). He noted the applicant was awaiting City approval of public improvements installed on the site, and no houses had yet been constructed. He advised the 10-acre property would be developed to very low density and included lots which ranged from 20,070 to 41,415 square feet in area, which were well in excess of the 15,000 square-foot minimum for the R-15 zone. He noted that ownership of a 27' strip of property along the west property line was in dispute; but however the issue was revolved, there would be no impact on the ability of the proposed plan to conform with size and setback limitations. Mr. Pishvaie explained the applicant desired that the project's setbacks (Exhibit 5) be made more flexible for the benefit of future property owners, providing for them to be reduced in some cases, and expanded in other cases. He pointed out on Exhibit 6 that the front yard setbacks for lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 would be reduced from 75' to 65', 55', 55' and 75', respectively. He advised that none of the proposed setbacks fell below the Code's minimum requirement, and all other exceeded the minimum requirements, except the rear yard of Lot 10. He indicated the staff did not oppose the request to modify the project's setbacks. Mr. Pishvaie explained the application did not qualify for staff review of a minor modification because the proposed modifications affected conditions of approval, and hence the application was to be considered a new application, and all criteria were required to be addressed in the staff report. He pointed out that all previous Findings were included in the staff report because staff found no new circumstances or standards to be addressed that had not already been addressed in the original application. Mr. Pishvaie noted the neighborhood preferred that no street lights be installed in the neighborhood; however, the DRC had required the lighting, and the applicant had already installed it. He concluded the project complied with all applicable regulations City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 10 Minutes of September 21, 1998 and recommended approval of the project, subject to conditions that would require the applicant to continue to comply with all original conditions of approval; and modify conditions A(2) and A(5)(b) according to Exhibit 6. Mr. Pishvaie clarified for Ms. Morales that the maximum buildable area (25%) would not change when the setbacks changed. He clarified for Chair Cushing that the applicant was proposing lighting that complied with City standards, and that the permitted building height had not changed from a maximum of 35', regardless of the topography. Applicant Robert Maid, P.O. Box 1004, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, explained that he desired the modifications to create more flexibility for property owners so they could capture views and create better driveway access to their homes. He testified the plan still conformed with Code requirements. He stated to Mr. Kiersey that the proposal would not adversely impact the existing neighbors. Opponents Renee Kerr, 18210 S. Crestline Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, stated she and her husband, Bruce, lived directly across from Lots 2 and 3 of the development. She said they enjoyed a beautiful view of trees and the mountain. She said they enjoyed walking at night while viewing the stars and moon; however, the new street lights would reduce their level of enjoyment. She said the neighborhood included large lots, with houses typically 100' from the roadway. She indicated residents wanted to maintain the existing non-urban characteristic of the neighborhood. She requested the originally-approved project conditions not be changed. Erik Eselius, 18018 Skvland Circle, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, testified that he resided immediately west of the development and was the property owner who disputed the location of the project's west boundary. He said his was a functioning, non-organic orchard, and he used pesticides and insecticides there. He said he had a farm permit and plan. He worried that new residents of the development would complain about living next to a farm. He opined that it was a shame that street lights were to be introduced into the neighborhood. He clarified for the commissioners that he had 20 acres of land with 7 acres planted, and 1,500 trees. Chair Cushing recalled a previous application where the developer was required to install the infrastructure for future street lighting as a condition of approval. Mr. Pishvaie clarified that internal street lighting for that project had been required, but only wiring for street lights had been required on external streets - Burgess and Cornell - until property across the street was developed. He said that street lighting was typically required every 150 feet. Mr. Magid stated his project was to have a total of six street lights on the exterior of the development. Mr. Eselius explained that the development would be the only portion of the neighborhood with high pole lights and would appear to be an island of light in the middle of the neighborhood. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 10 Minutes of September 21, 1998 Kevin Welch, 18010 Skvland Circle, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, testified he owned property to the southeast of the development, and his house was northeast of Lot 9. He noted that erosion problems to be addressed by the applicant. He noted that Lot 10 was of a similar grade and slope, and he worried about erosion control and drainage on the hillside, particularly across the back slope of Lot 9 to the retention pond in the north to the drainage ditch. He said there was nothing across Lot 10 to stop water from draining onto his property. He indicated his concern about how modified setbacks would affect erosion control and drainage from those two lots, particularly changes to setbacks on Lot 10. He asked that the impact of drainage and erosion control be considered when considering modifications to the site. He said the street lighting would adversely affect him, and lights were not appropriate for the neighborhood. He opined that the development would adversely affect Mrs. Kerr's view from her family room and the views of other property owners. He clarified for Chair Cushing that Exhibit 6 included his property, which was the middle lot of three lots from the east property line of the Magid development. He explained that his property was adversely affected by drainage from Lots 9 and 10 because the water flowed in a northeasterly direction from those lots towards his lot. Chair Cushing noted the conditions of approval required a storm water drainage line to serve Lot 10, and a grading plan for engineered fill necessary for that site. Mr. Pishvaie advised the lot sloped to the northeast and the applicant was required to install a drainage system to serve the lot and direct water into the detention pond on open space Tract A. He noted that Mr. Welsh had experienced some drainage problems in the course of construction during the past year, which he believed had been addressed by the Engineering staff. He said that each lot was required to provide positive drainage, so no individual roof or foundation drain could direct water directly onto neighboring property, and water was to be moved to a drainage pond behind Lot 8. Mr. Welch observed that if the current direction of the drainage ditch being constructed for Lot 8 was to continue in the same direction, it would cut through someone's living room on Lot 10. He opined the water would not be directed to the detention pond. He stated that he had discussed his concern with the City Engineer. Mr. Pishvaie advised that the City's Plumbing Code and Drainage Standard required that development intensified drainage be captured on the lot, and not allowed to drain onto another lot. James Frazer, 18135 Crestline Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, testified he resided just west of the development, directly across from Lot 4. He expressed his disappointment that street lights were to be allowed. He recalled that the applicant had related to him that he did not care one way or another if the lights were installed; however, he noted the staff report indicated the applicant wanted to install the lighting. He indicated that no neighbor supported the installation of street lights, and that he advocated that residents be required to install their own decorative lights, as a substitute for street lights. He clarified for the Commission that there was a new street light at his driveway, one near his back yard, and a total of eight street lights had been installed in the neighborhood. Mr. Frazer stated that he was disappointed that the applicant was requesting modifications to the original conditions imposed on the development. Chair Cushing noted the City Code mandated appropriate illumination on all public and private streets; however, some streets did not feature lights because they had been constructed prior to adoption of the current regulations. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 10 Minutes of September 21, 1998 Bruce Kerr, Skvlands, 18210 S. Crestline Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, testified he was president of the neighborhood association. He indicated that he appreciated the fact that the applicant had created larger lot sizes, and matched the CC&R's of the neighborhood. He said the neighborhood felt the City had not responded to their concerns. He described the area as unique, old fashioned and non-contiguous to the City. He said the homes above the development featured 100' setbacks from the street and every house in the neighborhood featured a minimum 25' side yard setback. He asked the Commission to recognize the area was not an urban area and was unique. He stated that any home on a slope in the neighborhood was restricted to 20' height. He pointed out that his view was of Lots 2 and 3 and he provided photographs of his view, which were marked to show how the new homes would block his view if they were built with the allowed 50' setback and a 35' height restriction. He commended the applicant for only developing ten lots on the site; however, he asked that the more stringent height limit be placed on the development. He related the applicant had committed to the Weabers and the Fosters (former owners of his property) to limit the new homes' height so they would not impact their views. He explained that was the reason they did not object to the development during the original review process, and Karen Weaber had testified in favor of the development. Mr. Kerr distributed drawings showing a computer-modified photo of potential building heights. Richard Noble, 17925 S. Crestline Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, testified that he was a former chair of the neighborhood association. He said he felt it was unfair to the neighborhood to request modifications of the development at this point in the process. He recalled he had previously testified about street lighting, which street lightling he opined was not necessary. In referring to the issue of street lighting regulations, Chair Cushing explained that the Planning Commission and the City Council were policy- making bodies; however, the DRC did not have similar authority. John Weaber, 18290 S. Crestline Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, explained he owned Lot 24, which was due west of Lot 2 of the development. He testified that he shared his neighbor's opinions regarding the inappropriateness of street lights and that he supported the applicant's development. He said the residents' night view would be sacrificed after the lighting was activated. He said he currently had a view of three street lights. He commented that the staff report included a multi-page discussion of ways to protect a fir and an oak tree, but no discussion of how to protect the existing neighbors. He indicated the Skylands neighborhood should not be considered urban. He commended the applicant for his efforts to work with the neighborhood since 1995. He stated the views in the area contributed to its property values, and wondered why CC&R's to protect the existing community had not been recommended by staff He indicated that strict application of the City Code would damage his community, and he asked that reason be substituted for Code requirements. He opined that no one at the hearing would insist on street lighting, so some way should be found to remove it from the requirements. Mr. Cushing asked if the CCR's referenced, included a height limitation? He added he didn't believe the DRC had any authority to impose a height limitation greater than the code requirement. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 10 Minutes of September 21, 1998 Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, advised that the DRC did not have the authority to reduce the maximum allowed building height. Mr. Pishvaie advised there was no City law that would enable the DRC or the City Council to reduce building heights in order to preserve a view corridor for abutting properties. He said the only City policies designed to protect views were 1) a specific policy to preserve the Mt. Hood view from A Avenue; and 2) a specific policy to protect the view for properties west of Marylhurst College. He did note, however, that the Comprehensive Plan generally directed the DRC to ensure that residential developments were compatible with the neighborhood. He said it was not clear whether the DRC could determine that in order for the applicant's development to be compatible with the neighborhood, that it should include the same CC&Rs as the neighborhood. He noted the only reason this project was categorized as a planned development was because of its size of 10 acres, and the applicant was not asking to modify any of the underlying zone requirements or standards. He clarified that planned developments were developments of 4 acres or more, or 20 units or more. Mr. Boone advised that in order to impose a building height limitation to the site, the limitation should be to carry out purposes listed in City regulations for planned unit developments, such as to conserve natural features and facilitate desirable aesthetic and efficient use of open space. Fred Lawless, 18235 S. Crestline Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, stated that he had resided north of Lot 1 near the intersection of Crestline and Green Bluff Drives for 10 years. He recalled that the homes that had been built during that time had conformed to the neighborhood's CC&Rs, and he asked that some way be found to make the applicant's development also conform to them. He opined the street lights and reduced setbacks would adversely affect the property values in the area. Mr. Noble, asked for clarification of a reference in the staff report to a similar situation where the DRC had made an accommodation regarding street lighting. He opined the style of street lights the applicant was installing were ugly,parking-lot-style fixtures. Scott Burg, 18014 Skvland Circle, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, stated he resided southeast of Lot 10, and was a new resident of the neighborhood. He referred to the DRC meeting minutes of July 15, 1996, page 23, and stressed that no one wanted the street lights. He testified that he was not aware when he purchased his property that the new development would include street lights. He indicated he appreciated the area's consistency of setbacks. Karen Weaber, 18290 S. Crestline Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, testified she was an owner of Lot 24, at the top of Green Bluff Drive. She said her view included the development. She related that she had attended all meetings regarding the application and had supported the applicant, and the applicant had always been willing to discuss the project with her. She indicated her support of the development, except for the street lighting. She described the fixtures as being in excess of 24' high. She said that although the lighting was directed downward, the height of the poles resulted in intrusion of lighting into the residents' night views. She related she had purchased a telescope to maximize her family's enjoyment of the night view. She said that street lights and sidewalks were not considered desirable by the neighborhood, and would not blend in with the neighborhood. She said her area was part of a non-contiguous annexation, City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 10 Minutes of September 21, 1998 which she had heard was not allowed, however, a staff person had indicated to her that the properties there would eventually subdivide. However, she had noted for him that all of the houses there were situated in the center of the properties. She recalled the application was to be considered a new application, and she requested that the lighting be reconsidered and the setbacks not be modified. She said she and her husband had spent many hours in the field establishing the original setbacks with the developer, and she was distressed that they were to be changed. She said she believed the DRC could influence City Council policy. Neither for nor Against None. Mr. Pishvaie explained for Ms. Morales how the height was measured on a sloped lot. He said the method had been changed in 1993 so that the height was measured from any point within the building envelope, and from a line parallel with the grade, to a mid-point of a pitched roof Rebuttal Mr. Magid noted the purpose of the application was to obtain approval of the building envelope. He recalled there was no reason not to approve it, and the result of approval would be a better development. Then he addressed three issues he recalled from testimony. Mr. Magid addressed Mr. Welch's concern regarding drainage by explaining that every lot was required to have its own individual laterals going into a central storm sewer system. He said the lot Mr. Welch had been concerned about had been upgraded to higher engineering standards at great expense, and there should not be future problems there. Mr. Magid addressed concerns about height. He said that only two lots would affect the views of neighbors, and he would make every effort to address their concerns. He asked that height restrictions not be imposed for the development in general because they had no impact on anyone else in the area. He said each new house would appear as a positive presentation for the neighborhood. He asked for guidelines regarding the lighting, and asked if the Code required them or if they could be eliminated. Mr. Boone advised that the DRC was not empowered to grant an exception to the lighting requirement for a Planned Development, and the City's lighting regulations did not provide for variances or exceptions. Mr. Pishvaie advised an option where the applicant could have applied for a Class II variance, which would have required him to show a hardship created the need for the variance. He related that if the variance had been requested based upon adverse impact on the neighborhood, it would have been the first variance of this kind requested of the City. He advised that another option that had been used previously was where the installation of the lighting had been deferred and the applicant had been required to sign a non-remonstrance agreement for improvements at a future time when the street was improved through a Local Improvement District. He City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 10 Minutes of September 21, 1998 noted that in the example of the development approved along Burgess Road, where the developer was required to install the infrastructure for street lights along the road, the Commission had required internal lighting be installed. He noted the Lighting Standard existed to address urban safety concerns. He summarized that: 1) the DRC could adopt Findings similar to the original approval, requiring the lighting; or 2) the applicant apply for a Class II variance to not install internal or external lights on the basis of hardship; or 3) the DRC could adopt a Finding that would defer the original Finding based on new Findings that the lighting was unnecessary at this time (similar to the Findings regarding the development along Burgess Road). Ms. Binkley suggested that different kinds of lighting fixtures be installed. Mr. Pishvaie advised that a lower wattage could be required (50-watt, or 70-watt, or whatever would be suggested by the City Engineer); however, lower wattage lighting typically required more fixtures in order to achieve a minimum level of lighting for an area. Chair Cushing noted the standards required a lighting level of between .15 and .4 average foot candles, as measured on the street, and Ms. Binkley advised that was a very low range of lighting levels. Mr. Magid related that 8 of the 9 lights he had been required to install were installed. He asked if the 9th fixture could be eliminated and if the lighting could be reduced in level of intensity. He recalled that the 25' high shoebox light that had been installed had been required after it had been suggested by a Commissioner in order to address the neighbors' original concerns. He agreed that style of fixture was unattractive, but he explained that it was among the few styles of lights that PGE would service, and the more attractive light fixtures generated more glare and would more adversely affect the area's night views. He said the fixtures he installed were of a style that was supposed to eliminate the glare. He indicated his willingness to trade the existing fixtures for other styles, and he asked if the DRC had the authority to approve that change in order to provide a more satisfactory solution for the neighborhood. He clarified for Mr. Kiersey that he felt that prospective residents of the neighborhood desired some type of lighting for safety reasons; however, he felt the lights that were approved were not an agreeable design, even though they were supposed to eliminate glare. He said the next best light was significantly better looking; however, it would be brighter. Ms. Binkley commented that she had calculated that the requested modification to the setbacks would allow for maximum lot coverage on Lots 7 through 10. He agreed that could be the case on Lots 7 and 9; Lot 10 was to be combined with another lot; and minimal changes would occur to coverage on the remaining lots. He said the changes had been made to maximize the view or correct the driveway access. Ms. Weaber asked what advantage the neighborhood would receive for requesting that the hearing be held open for additional evidence or testimony. Chair Cushing advised that those who had testified had the right to additional time to submit additional written evidence; Mr. Magid had the right to respond in writing; and typically the Commission would consider the matter with no further verbal testimony unless another issue arose that made it necessary to do so. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 10 Minutes of September 21, 1998 Mr. Noble requested the record be held open for additional written testimony. Chair Cushing advised that the opponents would have until 5:00 PM on Monday, September 28, 1998, to submit additional written evidence; the applicant should be provided with a copy of that evidence the same day, and submit his response by Thursday, October 1, 1998 at noon; and the staff would review the new information and prepare a report for presentation at the continuation of the hearing of PD 1-96 (Mod. 7-98) on October 5, 1998. V. GENERAL PLANNING Design of single-family residences Mr. Pishvaie clarified for the Commission that the City's design standards do not apply to single-family residences that are not within a planned development. Special Lake Setback Variances The Commissioners noted two recent DRC decisions related to the setback that had been successfully appealed to the City Council. Mr. Pishvaie explained that because the DRC was quasi-judicial body, it was required to review applications according to the hardship criteria specified in City regulations; whereas the City Council, as a legislative body, had the authority to be more lenient regarding contentions of hardship. He related that the staff was formulating recommendations for new standards for variances. New parking regulations Mr. Pishvaie related that the City's new transportation planning regulations included a new category, "Specialty Food Stores," which included coffee shops and stores with typically higher turnover rates. He advised such stores were required to plan for 6.6 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space, as contrasted with the 14.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet required for a typical "sit-down" restaurant. He noted that a local developer had successfully applied, under the new standard, to modify parking from what had been originally approved. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 10 Minutes of September 21, 1998 Code changes suggested The Commissioners suggested that notifications regarding applications for new developments be mailed to tenants, as well as property owners and that notifications be required to be mailed to people directly across the river, canal or lake. Mr. Boone noted that the draft Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan being reviewed by the Planning Commission included a notification requirement that the notice be mailed to the closest 50 properties, even if they were farther away than 300 feet. VI. OTHER BUSINESS None. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Douglas P. Cushing adjourned the meeting at 9:23 PM. Respectfully submitted, Janice Benn Senior Secretary 1:Adre\minutes\09-21-98.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 10 Minutes of September 21, 1998