Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1998-11-02 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 2, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Commission meeting of November 2, 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 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present included Chair Cushing, Julie Morales, William Horning, Nan Binkley, Douglas Kiersey and Sheila Ostly. Lawrence Magura was excused. Staff present were Tom Coffee, Assistant City Manager; Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner; Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner; David Powell, City Attorney; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Janice Benn, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Kiersey moved for approval of the October 5. 1998 minutes. Ms. Morales seconded the motion, and it passed with Chair Cushing, Ms. Morales, Mr. Horning, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly voting yes. Mr. Magura was absent. There were no votes against. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER Ms. Morales moved to approve DR 10-98. a request by David Kidd. Mr. Kiersey seconded the motion, and it passed with Chair Cushing, Ms. Morales, Mr. Horning, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly voting yes. Mr. Magura was absent. There were no votes against. V. PUBLIC HEARING DR 20-96/CU 6-96 II (Remand). the applicant, Harold G. Long Architects, requested 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. Following the close of the initial public hearing, at the applicant's request, the hearing has been continued and reopened for the following purpose: to consider the following modifications to the application: (1) relocating the east driveway on Chandler Road further west; (2)revised parking plan; and(3) removal of 3 designated trees (8, 9 and 27). The Chair will open the Development Review Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9 November 2, 1998 hearing for public testimony limited to considerations resulting from the above described modifications to the application. 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. Continued from 9/9/98, 9/21/98 and 10/5/98 meetings. Staff report dated August 26, 1998, and staff addendum dated September 18, 1998 and October 23, 1998. 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. Mr. Kiersey recused himself from hearing the application. All other Commissioners present indicated they were 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. Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner,recalled the application had been continued at the request of the applicants after they discovered an inadvertant omission in the record regarding the location of trees and removal of trees from the westerly parking lot. He referred to the staff memorandum dated October 23, 1998, which he noted included additional exhibits to identify 36 additional trees at the site and proposed to remove four of them in addition to the two on the east end of the project that were part of the original application. He noted that it was a typographic error that tree #7 would be removed. He concluded that the applicants correction of the record and their redesign of the westerly lot was appropriate and timely and minimized the number of trees to be removed, and he recommended that the applicants' new exhibits be included in the record and that the applicaiton be approved subject to conditions recommended in the staff memorandum. Applicant Greg Hathaway. Davis Wright Tremain, 1300 SW 9th Ave, Portland, 97201, stated that he represented the applicant. He verified that the error regarding the westerly parking lot had been discovered prior to closure of the record, and the applicant had presented a revised parking lot plan to correct the error. He clarified the revised plan maintained the same number of parking spaces as the previous version of the application. He clarified that trees to be removed would be Trees #9, #10 and#27. He related that the applicant had discussed the plan with the neighbors to the west who supported the application. Rich Farrington, Harold Lone Architect. 532 SW Belmont. Ste 204. Portland. 97214, described how the applicant intended to add a driveway and angle parking between trees to maximize parking in the west parking lot. He noted the plan would include the same number of spaces indicated in the original proposal. He related that six spaces on the would be surfaced with grasscrete and two trees would be removed along the west property line (a poplar tree, and a 9" Fir tree in poor condition) to make room for three angled parking spaces. He noted that there were other Fir trees in the area where trees were to be removed, so screening would not be reduced for the westerly neighbors. He said one flowering plum tree would also need to be removed to accommodate the new Development Review Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 November 2, 1998 driveway. Mr. Farrington clarified for Chair Cushing that the new driveway would be opposite a residential driveway and not the Heritage House Driveway. He explained that four handicapped spaces were planned for the site. He explained for Ms. Binkley that the sidewalk would continue toward Chandler Road and would connect with a ramp near the stairs, and the landscaped island would be extended. He clarified for Mr. Horning that some parking spaces were to be adjusted to accommodate trees at a lower grade and curb stops would be installed there. Opponents None Neither for nor Against None. Rebuttal None No one requested the record be held open for additional written evidence. Chair Cushing closed the public hearing. The applicants waived their right to additional time to submit a final written argument. Deliberation Ms. Binkley noted the revised parking plan improved the entry area. Mr. Horning observed that some trees near the parking area had minimal room to grow, if the drawings were drawn to scale, and he suggested the applicant consider understory planting. He wondered if the rebuilt fence was on the property line. Ms. Ostly commented the revised plan was a positive improvement compared to the current configuration. Mr. Horning noted that use of Heritage House parking spaces should reduce the impact of overflow parking on the neighborhood. Ms. Binkley observed differences between the drawings in Exhibits 115-118 and the model shown in Exhibit 127 were differences in roof overhangs and in divisions in the windows in the main section of the gable. She suggested that Exhibit 127 be added to the conditions of approval. Mr. Wheeler clarified that the actual model was not an exhibit, but photographs of it were exhibits. Ms. Binkley observed that Exhibit 127 showed what was proposed as well as what had been modified, but it was hard to read. She noted there was no window shown in between the two triple windows, however Exhibit 117 showed a window there, on both sides of the building. She noted the Exhibit showing the model showed more roof Development Review Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 November 2, 1998 overhang. Ms. Morales suggested a condition be added to ensure similar dimensions of overhang on both sides of the building. Mr. Wheeler observed there was approximately 10"to 12" of eve overhang illustrated in Exhibit 117. He noted the existing building shown on the right side of the east elevation showed approximately a 2' overhang and it was similar on the north end of the building. Ms. Morales recalled the applicant's testimony had described the overhang as 18". She suggested that it emulate more closely the existing overhangs. Ms. Binkley suggested condition (2.)(a.) should read"as illustrated in Exhibits 115-118 and Exhibit 127 (model) as modified showing roof overhangs and window configuration" and include reference to Exhibits 128 and 129. She recalled previous Commission discussion regarding a condition that"new windows shall have mullions expressed or exposed on the exterior of the glazing," so that no snap-in grills would be used. Chair Cushing recalled the Commission discussed adding Condition E. regarding implementation of the parking policies (Exhibit 119) and the agreement with the Heritage Council (Exhibit 124). Ms. Morales recalled discussion regarding noise control, and the louver spacing of the HVAC system. Mr. Wheeler pointed out the September 18, 1998, staff memorandum included Exhibit 134, a letter and graphic exhibit discussing the issue about the height of the fence. He explained the fence on the south side of the site was illustrated in Exhibit 132,which had been provided by Mr. Alterman, attorney for the Shepherds. He explained the neighbor desired a segment of fence installed between the corner of the parish hall and the south line and then segments of 40' to 50' long from that point going west, with the fence to be an 8'-tall acoustically-designed sound barrier, and the remainder of the fence to the west to be a sight-obscuring fence. He recalled the testimony was that the applicant requested that the issue of the height of the fence be allowed to be resolved outside of the hearing through an agreement with the neighbors. Mr. Horning noted that if the application was approved at the hearing, the fence would be a 6' tall acoustical fence, in sections as shown in the exhibits. He recalled testimony had provided a verbal description of an acoustical fence of marine plywood on two sides, similar to wall construction, and professionally-engineered and designed. Mr. Wheeler recommended that the fence be installed in a staggered pattern, for a more- pleasing appearance. Chair Cushing and Ms. Morales commented that testimony had not shown the issue had been totally resolved. Chair Cushing noted the applicants could return to apply for a variance for the fence. Ms. Morales expressed her concern about the HVAC equipment being located next to a residential property. The Commissioners reviewed the plan and discussed possible ways to relocate or buffer the system. Ms. Morales noted the system would be buffered by a fence and landscaping, but she suggested that additional more low and dense landscaping might help to reduce the noise, and that the system be designed to minimize noise Development Review Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 November 2, 1998 generated by the unit. Ms. Morales commented that the current design was more in character with the buildings on the site than the previous design. She hoped the use of grasscrete would be a pleasant alternative to pavement. Ms. Binkley pointed out Exhibits 117 and 118 showed the parish hall featured a gabled roof and the gallery featured a flat roof, and that side of the building was different than the other side of the structure. Ms. Binkley moved for approval of DR 20-96/CU 6-96 II (Remand), subject to the conditions in the staff reports, with the following modifications: In Condition A.(2.)(a.) add the language "as illustrated in Exhibits 115-118; Exhibit 127, as modified, showing roof overhangs and window configurations; Exhibits 128, 129, 137 and 138. Window mullions shall be expressed or exposed on the exterior of the glazing." New Condition E. to read "During subsequent use the applicant shall continue to implement their parking policies (Exhibit 119) and the shared parking agreement (Exhibit 124)." Condition A. (2.)(c.) add the following language: "The landscape plans are to include dense shrubbery between the air conditioner and the fence on the south," and "The fence is to be rebuilt on the west side of the parking lot." Add Condition A. (2.)(e.) "Acoustical fencing shall be professionally-engineered." Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Cushing, Ms. Morales, Mr. Horning, Ms. Binkley, Ms. Ostly voting yes. Mr. Kiersey had recused himself. There were no votes against. V. PUBLIC HEARING 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. Following the close of the initial public hearing, the applicant has requested additional setback modifications to Lot 8, which differ from the modifications that appeared in the previous notice for this application. The Chair will re-open the public hearing to consider the additional setback modifications to lot 8, which differ from the modifications that appeared in the previous notice for this application and describe the hearing procedure, and staff will present its Report. The Chair will then open the hearing for public testimony limited to considerations resulting from the above described modifications to the application. The site is located South of Greenbluff Dr., East of Development Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 November 2, 1998 Crestline Dr., Tax Lot(s) 2200 of Tax Map 21E 15 DA. Continued from the 9/21/98 and 10/5/98 meetings. Staff report dated September 11, 1998 and staff addendum dated October 2, 1998. 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. Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Ms. Morales, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly indicated they had visited the site. Mr. Horning recused himself. 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. Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report of October 2, 1998. He noted that the applicant had submitted a new exhibit (Exhibit 22), showing modified setbacks on Lot 8. He related that staff recommended the application be approved with the modified setbacks because the proposal conformed to the requirements of the R-15 zone. He recommended the requirement for street lighting be left unchanged so that the development conformed to the City's Code. He recommended that no conditions be imposed related to view protection because the Code did not contain relevant criteria for the DRC to evaluate new issues. He advised that previous references in the recommended conditions to Exhibit 6 should be replaced by reference to Exhibit 22. Applicant Robert Magid, PO Box 1004, Lake Oswego, 97034, noted that all setbacks in the development were well within Code requirements, and that the modified setbacks requested for Lot 8 were for the purpose of siting a house there. He clarified for Ms. Binkley that he was willing to work with the neighbors to determine types of lighting that would be satisfactory to them, although he advised there were essentially only three types of lights that PGE would agree to service; and the type that had been planned for the site was the type that had originally been ordered by the Commission. He noted that type had less glare than other types. He opined there might be a better-looking light and he would discuss that with the neighbors if the Commission authorized an option of using a different style of light. He suggested the lights be tested in the neighborhood. He clarified for Chair Cushing that the lights were currently installed, but had not been turned on. Mr. Kiersey referred to Exhibit 19, a letter from Ms. Weaber, and noted that it related that a meeting had been held between the applicant and the neighbors on September 2, 1995, where views, setbacks and heights of new homes built on Lots 1 and 2 were agreed upon. Mr. Magid stated that although no written agreement had been negotiated, the applicant's surveyor had attempted to generally establish dimensions for appropriate views and heights at that time, and he had agreed that homes there should be of a single level. He clarified that he intended to utilize maximum setbacks on the large lots for the purpose of creating an estate-like perception of the homes. Ms. Ostly noted that some neighbors had originally supported the development because of the setbacks, as they understood them. Development Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 November 2, 1998 Mr. Magid recalled the neighbors supported his intent to create larger lots with larger setbacks that fit the neighborhood. Opponents Sharon Sides. 18050 S. Skylands Circle. Lake Oswego. 97034. stated that she had served on the board of the neighborhood association in 1995. She recalled discussions with the applicant at that time regarding style of homes, street lights and the residents' desire for the development to continue the style of the neighborhood. She acknowledged the City's mandate regarding installation of street lights. She recalled the property adjacent to hers had conformed to neighborhood CC&Rs regarding restrictions on height in order to preserve her view and stressed that the Weabers and Kerrs were currently concerned with preservation of their views. She opined the new street lights would significantly impact the development's neighbors. She worried that a driveway on Skylands Circle would promote additional traffic on that street. She noted the neighborhood had already been impacted by the installation of water facilities along the street. Chair Cushing clarified that there were no street changes or driveways planned for Skylands Circle. Ms. Sides requested a committee be formed to look into street lights and height restrictions to be maintained in the neighborhood. Bruce Kerr. 18210 Crestline Drive. Lake Oswego. 97034. stated he was president of the neighborhood association. He asked the Commission to protect neighborhood interests, including their views. He noted the area of the neighborhood was similar to an island that had been annexed to the City and that the area was .5 to .75 miles from the City proper. He related he had reviewed City records pertaining to the Marylhurst and Northridge subdivisions and noted that the height restrictions for those areas had been imposed by the DRC. He noted that simultaneous to the development of Special District Plans by those subdivisions, the Skylands Association had also been in the process of developing their special plan. He opined that it had not been completed because the residents there did not expect the City to overlay certain requirements on their distant neighborhood. Chair Cushing clarified that the area's application for annexation had been decided by the Boundary Commission, and DRC authority was limited to hearing development applications. Mr. Kerr related that the residents believed the applicant had made commitments at various times over the past three years that he would protect their property values. He requested the residents of his neighborhood be treated in a similar manner to the residents in other areas of the City. He acknowledged that the setback for Lot 8 would not impact the neighborhood because the lot below it had a retention pond; the lot behind it was an open space; Lots 1 and 2 were above it; and the setback from the street would be maintained. He clarified for Ms. Binkley that the neighborhood was requesting that a height restriction be imposed on Lots 1 and 2 of the new development. Neither for nor Against Development Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 November 2, 1998 None. Rebuttal Mr. Magid stated there was no basis for the Commission to impose a height restriction at the site. He said his intent had been to be neighborly and respect neighborhood concerns. No one requested the hearing be held open for additional written testimony. Chair Cushing closed the public hearing. The applicant waived his right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Deliberation Ms. Ostly recalled that the street lights were obvious features above the site. She suggested that when the lights were turned on the lighting should be measured and reduced in intensity, if possible. She acknowledged the Commission had no jurisdiction to impose height limits at the site; however, she observed the Skylands neighborhood had historically strictly enforced their height limits. She opined that an agreement had been made with the residents regarding the setbacks. She noted the applicant was requesting his third change in the development before any houses were constructed. She wondered if it was necessary to change the setbacks from what had been agreed to. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, advised that the neighborhood's CC&Rs and any private agreements that the developer may have made with the neighbors would not be affected by DRC action; however, the agreements might be enforceable in a private right of action. He encouraged the DRC to make its decision regarding the application according to the City's standards. Ms. Ostly asked if the land included in the site was subject to CC&Rs. Mr. Boone recalled testimony that the neighboring property was subject to CC&Rs; however, he said those CC&Rs should not be a factor for a DRC decision. Ms. Binkley and Ms. Ostly reviewed the dimensions of the pavement, the right-of-way and lot setbacks for Lots 1 and 2 along Crestline and Greenbluff Roads. The Commissioners examined the plan for Lot 1, and estimated the builder could construct a building with a 6,500 square foot envelope on the lot (25% of the lot area). Mr. Kiersey commented that as long as the applicant was making changes to the location of the envelope within established City guidelines, there was no basis to deny his request. Ms. Binkley suggested that as long as the applicant complied with the Lighting Standard- a previously-approved condition-he should be encouraged to test the impact of different lights on the area. Ms. Morales encouraged the applicant to work together with the neighborhood. Ms. Kiersey moved for approval of PD 1-96 (Mod. 7-98), subject to the conditions in the staff report and memorandum and an additional condition that after the lights Development Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 November 2, 1998 had been energized a photo metric evaluation was to be conducted and the lighting was to be reduced to the lowest level of illumination allowed by the Code. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Cushing, Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly voting yes. Mr. Horning had recused himself. There were no votes against. VI. GENERAL PLANNING Melrose Court Chair Cushing and Ms. Binkley observed the grade at a recently-approved site adjacent to Westlake looked too high. Staff agreed to recheck the site. Churches and other conditional uses in residential zones Ms. Binkley recalled a recently-approved application where a church structure covered 25% of its lot and parking facilities covered most of the remainder of the site. She suggested that the City consider modifying its regulations in the cases of conditional uses in residential zones. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Douglas P. Cushing adjourned the meeting at 8:45 PM. Respectfully submitted. Janice Benn Senior Secretary 1:\dre\minutes\11-2-98.doc Development Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 November 2, 1998