Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1999-10-04 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 4, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Commission meeting of October 4, 1999 was called to order by Vice Chair Nan Binkley at approximately 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A"Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present included Vice Chair Binkley and Commissioners William Horning, Douglas Kiersey and Sheila Ostly. Chair Julie Morales and Commissioners Doug Cushing and Bruce Miller were absent. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner; Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner; Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Janice Benn, Senior Secretary. III. PUBLIC HEARING LU 99-0042. a request by Venture Properties to modify DR 27-97 in order to modify the existing site plan by increasing the length of the three most westerly parking spaces from 18 feet to 28 feet. This modification will require the redesign of the storm water quality facility and landscaping will be reduced from 38.7% to 37.8%. This modification is being requested to accommodate vehicles used by subcontractors and project supervisors. The site is located at 4230 Galewood Street, Tax Lot 2000 of Tax Map 21E 8BC. Staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. Continued from September 8th and September 20, 1999 hearings. Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, requested that LU 99-0042 be continued to allow the applicant to modify detention ponds and submit the revised information. He explained that another hearing would be scheduled and public notice would be provided to all affected property owners at a later date. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, clarified that the applicant intended the 120-day time period was to be interrupted starting with the current hearing and would then continue from the next scheduled hearing. Mr. Kiersey moved to continue LU 99-0042. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Horning, Binkley, Kiersey and Ostly voting yes. Commissioners Cushing, Morales and Miller were absent. There were no votes against. City of Lake Oswego Page 1 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 AP 99-05 FLU 99-00071, an appeal of the Planning Director's Decision approving a two- parcel minor land partition request. The applicant had proposed to divide a 29,750-sq. ft. lot into two parcels, each measuring 11,658 sq. ft., and 18,092 sq. ft. in area. The site is located at 1066 North Shore Road, Tax Lots 7100 and 7101 of Tax Map 21E 1OBB. Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner. Continued from September 8th and September 20, 1999 hearings. Vice-Chair Binkley opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. She asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. Mr. Horning reported he had listened to tapes of the previous hearing, reviewed the exhibits and visited the site. Ms. Binkley reported she had listened to the tapes and visited the site. Vice-Chair Binkley 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, pointed out a memorandum dated October 1, 1999 cataloged all exhibits that pertained to the application. He advised that staff had reviewed the information, including testimony received since the last hearing, and had determined that no recommended conditions needed to be modified. He noted a memorandum from Pacific Resources Group dated September 20, 1999 was to be recorded as Exhibit 43. He relayed a letter that had been faxed to the Commission that day from Steven Russell (Exhibit 64) contended the applicant had submitted new testimony in the form of additional written evidence and the opponents of the application were entitled to respond to that evidence. He advised that the issue regarding a future tram at the site was outside the scope of the current hearing. Applicant's Rebuttal Bob Van Brocklin. 900 SW 5th Ave. Ste 2600. Portland. 97201, testified he represented Richard & Barbara Seltzer. He clarified that the applicants had submitted responses in rebuttal to issues raised by the opponents. He said the September 27, 1999 letter from Steven Getz of Pacific Resources Group was in response to two letters from the Collier Group and David Evans & Associates regarding the question of whether the applicant's tree removal and replacement plan would actually work on the site. He noted that Mr. Getz held that the plan would work there and achieve a one-for-one replacement of the few trees that would need to be removed for the new residence. He said his letter of September 30, 1999 (Exhibit 63) also responded to issues raised by the opponents. Mr. Van Brocklin stressed the requirements for a minor partition were included in minor development criteria for an R-10 Zone. He noted the lot sizes after partition would be greater than the 10,000 square feet minimum required in the zone. He said the application met all setback requirements, Hillside Protection standards and other applicable development review standards. He said the application, the staff report and a memorandum from the City's Public Works Department made it clear that all necessary public facilities and services were available to the site. He pointed out the staff report confirmed that sight distance, onsite circulation, and off-street parking requirements had City of Lake Oswego Page 2 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 been satisfied. He noted the Fire Marshal had concluded that fire protection standards could be met by installing an engineered dry standpipe system and a monitored early detection smoke alarm system, or alternatively, a sprinkler system for the residence. He stressed the applicants intended the minimum number of trees would be affected by the development he noted that most of those affected were to be younger trees. He recalled the recommended condition of approval that called for one-for-one replacement of the trees. He said the tree removal and replacement plan would be feasible for the site and noted the opponents' arborist's letter had indicated their conclusions had been drawn from offsite observations while Mr. Getz had observed conditions from on the site. He noted Mr. Russell had requested a condition of approval that every resident within 300 feet of the site be given notice and opportunity to comment on any building permit application. He held the City should evaluate building permits and an extraordinary requirement was not necessary. He said the Lake Corporation did not have concerns about lake access, only about certain activities within their easement, how it was used and any additional docks or boathouses were to be approved by the corporation. He added that his law firm had also represented the Lake Corporation on similar matters. Ms. Binkley asked staff about the requirements for partitioning a parcel into viable lots. She asked how a slope analysis could be accomplished with only dimensional information from the site owner regarding future construction there. Mr. Wheeler explained the suggested building footprint was below the maximum allowed slope and vegetation removal, and the final plan would be subject to additional analysis at the building permit stage of the development process. He advised the commissioners that a variance process or a Type II Tree-Cutting Permit process could be required at that time. Ms. Binkley noted that recommended Condition E (page 20) had been included to ensure the applicant clearly understood what the Code required and that they would be subject to current regulations during any future development. Deliberation Ms. Ostly noted the consultants for each side differed in their conclusions. She also observed the proposed lots met the City's requirements although they were not of standard configuration. Mr. Wheeler advised Mr. Horning that both proposed lots would comply with the zone's lot size requirements, but a garage on the northeast corner encroached on the public right of way and the existing house straddled the platted line between the lots. He clarified that two deck segments on the existing dwelling exceeded the limits of a previously granted variance and overhung an area owned by the Lake Corporation by several feet. He suggested a condition to correct that situation before a partition; however, he advised that other enforcement activity would be employed if the applicants chose not to proceed with the partition. He also clarified that the garage was a legal nonconforming use that would remain after the improvement. Mr. Kiersey noted the applicant had met the requirements for a minor partition although other issues had been raised that would need to be decided in the future. Ms. Binkley advised that the site was a challenging one from an architect's perspective. She also agreed the applicants had met the requirements for a minor partition. City of Lake Oswego Page 3 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 Ms. Horning agreed the lots were challenging to plat, but he opined they could be successfully integrated with the neighborhood. He predicted that similar attempts to divide property around the lake would be made and he suggested that the City focus on what kinds of R-10 land divisions were appropriate. Ms. Ostly moved to uphold the Planning Director's decision regarding AP 99-05 FLU 99-00071, subject to the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Kiersey seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Horning, Binkley, Kiersey and Ostly voting yes. Commissioners Cushing, Morales and Miller were absent. There were no votes against. AP 99-07 FLU 99-00041 an appeal of the Planning Director's decision approving the following three Class I variances in order to expand and convert an existing carport into a garage: a) Reduction of the front yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet. b) Reduction of the side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet. c) Expand a non-conforming structure. (The structure is non-conforming because it encroaches into current front and side yard setbacks of the R-7.5 zone.) Appellants: Joel Johnson, Faith Nagasawa, Robert Young, Darlene Young, Rosemary Forester, and Sandra and Rolf Pagels. Applicant: Andy & Theresa Hirschmann. The site is located at 6636 Maple Circle; Tax Lot 9100 of Tax Map 21E 17AB. Continued from September 8th and September 20, 1999 hearings. Vice-Chair Binkley opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. She asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. Commissioners Binkley, Kiersey and Ostly reported they had visited the site. Mr. Horning reported he was familiar with the neighborhood. No one in attendance challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Mr. Kiersey noted the correct address of the site was 16636 Maple Circle. Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner, introduced three new exhibits (Exhibits E — G): which included a letter from Robert and Doris Berg dated September 22, 1999; a letter and petition from Peter and Nancy Rossini dated September 30, 1999; and a letter from Maryann Barnhart dated October 4, 1999. He recalled the Planning Director's decision to approve the application on July 6, 1999 had modified the applicant's original request to reduce the front yard setback from 25 to 12 feet to a reduction to 15 feet. He pointed out proposed building modifications on the applicant's drawings and clarified there were two decks involved: a deck atop the proposed garage and a rooftop deck. He advised that variances were necessary for the conversion from a flat to a pitched roof in the sideyard setback and for the proposed 5' forward extension of the existing carport. He said the enclosure of the garage and the wing wall proposed along the deck railing did not require a variance because they involved construction within a non-conforming envelope. City of Lake Oswego Page 4 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 Mr. Tracy related the Planning Director's approval required the applicants to maintain the 15' front yard setback; required that expansion of the decks meet the existing setbacks or stay within the limits of their current nonconformity; and required the garage door be of the rollup type so vehicles could park in front of the garage. He explained that staff had evaluated factors affecting the application, including the small size of the lot (4,700 sq. ft. in an R-7.5 zone) and the lot depth; that the existing house had conformed to setback requirements in effect at the time it was built; that access to the rear yard was constricted by the 5' yard setbacks; that there was no opportunity for a side loading garage and a two-car garage was a reasonable use for most properties in the area; that other homes in the area had greater encroachments into the front yard, including the abutting property to the north; that the proposed 5' sideyard setback would follow the existing house plain and the existing development pattern in the neighborhood; and that the architectural style would be enhanced; and enclosing the carport would result in less potential noise impact. He said the Planning Director had found the applicants had satisfied the applicable criteria for granting a variance and had approved the request. Mr. Tracy related that neighbors had appealed the decision primarily because of the proposed expansion of the rooftop deck. He advised the expansion would conform to the 10' sideyard setbacks; did not exceed the height limitations of the zone; did not encroach into the front yard setback; complied with the Code and was not part of the variance application. He also recalled neighbors' concerns regarding fire suppression access. He noted the required fire access was 3' from the property line and the proposal was for 5 feet. He said another objection was that the modification would block sunlight and views. He advised that impacts to views were not specifically regulated by the Code, but were evaluated based on variance criteria regarding injury to the neighborhood. He said the impact to views would be the 1.5 feet forward expansion of the garage toward the front yard. He advised that building permits had been reviewed for compliance with the solar provisions of the Code. He said the height limit of the Solar Blocking provision would limit the structure to 33.6 feet, or a height taller than the prevailing height limit of the zone. He related the second floor deck and the rooftop deck had been proposed for their existing locations, however the roof height had been increased. He recalled neighbors concern about the height of the deck above the garage. He said the deck is currently nonconforming, and aside from the variance application it could be enclosed within its current envelope because that would not increase the nonconformity of the existing deck. He said the neighbors were concerned that after the garage was constructed there would be no way to prevent a future enclosure of the upper story deck. He noted the application showed a plan for an unenclosed deck above the garage. He said that design had been evaluated for impacts to light, air, noise, mass and scale of the proposed structure, and the variance approval had been based on the specific design presented by the applicants, which could not be altered without subsequent modification of the approval. He said staff found the applicants had satisfied the criteria for establishing a hardship and had limited the proposal so it would not be injurious to the neighborhood. He said the conditions of approval minimized the extent of the variances to the minimum necessary to provide a reasonable use for the two-car garage. He recommended approval of the Planning Director's decision. City of Lake Oswego Page 5 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 Mr. Tracy clarified for Ms. Binkley that a nonconforming envelope was three- dimensional and it was the portion of the of the rooftop deck outside of the current dimensions that had prompted the need for a variance. He also clarified for Mr. Homing that the existing house had been built in 1962 (prior to current zoning) and the original platted lot was less than 5,000 square feet in area. He explained that setbacks were measured to the exterior walls, excluding eaves. He recalled some previous City Council interest in regulating decks above rooftops, but he advised there was no current regulation in place. He clarified for Ms. Ostly that there was no record of the date the rooftop deck had been built, but it had been built prior to a 1992 increase in setback requirements. Applicant Teresa Hirschmann, 16636 Maple Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified that she had lived in the house from age four to age eighteen and she felt the neighborhood would be a great place to raise her daughter. She recalled the house had become a rental house for 13 years and had not been maintained as well as an owner-occupied home. She said she and her husband, Andy, intended to restore the home. She said she was surprised that after a year of staff discussions and proceedings the project was still not approved. She related that 90% of interior restoration had been accomplished. She said she and her husband had removed blackberry bushes, weeds, ivy and gravel that accumulated while the house was a rental property and they planned to plant trees and flowers and paint the house after the garage was built. She said the existing second story deck had a sagging fiberglass roof and was poorly designed. She observed that some homes in the area (particularly lakefront properties) had been updated over the years and others were still in need of attention. She observed a marked difference between the appearance of homes on the inside and on the outside of Maple Circle. She recalled frequent comments from neighbors that they appreciated improvements to the homes on the inside of the Circle. She interpreted a comment by Ms. Forester that the inner circle properties should not be built any closer to the street as contending that lakefront properties should be granted variances to build close to the street but not properties on the inside of the Circle. She said it was not appropriate for any property to build a large mass near the street, and she was not proposing that. She observed the Foresters parked their vehicles on the street every day because they used their garage for storage and Joel Johnson also parked his two vehicles on the street. She noted Maple Circle was a narrow street with no sidewalks and when vehicles were parked along it there was only room for a single travel lane there. She recalled a vehicle had been stolen from a carport two months prior. She said the applicant's vehicles would be stored off the street and a 15' by 30' area in front of the garage would provide ample off street parking for three visitor's cars. She observed that when neighbors who used the street for parking had visitors the congestion worsened. She opined her proposal was modest compared to modifications of other houses in the area. She recalled some houses that had been recently increased by 2,000 square feet of living space. She said the applicants were only proposing to extend their existing carport by 5 feet and to enclose it. She said they were rebuilding the existing deck above the carport to the same dimensions and were only changing the roof from flat to pitched style to make it more aesthetically pleasing. She said the roof change would actually decrease City of Lake Oswego Page 6 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 the overhang on the south side next to Joel Johnson's house from 24" to 12". She held the applicants were not adding living space. She said they had originally intended to gain storage space in the garage and move their furnace and water heater there from the house. She explained that after the dimensions of the garage had been reduced from 24' deep to 21' deep in order to minimize the variance to the front yard setback there was no longer room for anything but vehicles. She said her truck was 19.5 ` long and comparable in length to the popular SUVs. She said that there would be only 6" leeway in front of and behind the truck after the vehicle was parked in a 21' garage and if the garage was any smaller the pickup would have to be parked in front of the garage where it would stick out into the street. She stressed the applicants desired to garage their vehicles and to rebuild the existing deck without increasing its size. She opined that any further reductions or changes would be unwarranted. Ms. Hirschmann said appellants' motive stemmed from an incident in 1998 when Mr. Johnson had objected to the applicant's removal of a large maple tree. She recalled that Mr. Johnson had come on to her property and placed a sign on the tree that indicated that it was his property and he would sue anyone who touched it. She said the City then required a survey (at a cost to the applicants of$700.00) which subsequently showed the applicants owned the tree. She recalled that at the time of removal of the tree Mr. Johnson and Faith Nagasawa stood outside and screamed obscenities at the applicant and the tree service personnel. She related that her husband had overheard Mr. Johnson tell the tree service man that the Hirschmann's would have a garage "over his dead body." She said he subsequently had been able to persuade a small minority of neighbors along the street to participate in the appeal of the application approval. She contended that the letters from people who had opposed the application reflected incorrect information and showed they were not familiar with the facts but had been influenced by one person. She noted that comments suggesting that the applicants be required to remove their roof deck did not apply to the application and the appeal. She noted that although the adjoining neighbor to the north had a front yard setback of 11.2 feet, a letter from the Youngs stated the applicant's request for a 12' front setback was excessive for the area. She recalled a letter from Sharron Stanbro contended a two-story building would block a neighbor's sunlight even though the applicant's were requesting a single-story garage and an unchanged open second story deck. She noted that Ms. Stanbro had not opposed other recent variance applications. She questioned the intent of Mr. Johnson's photographic exhibits and she pointed out that every photograph showed vehicles parked on the street and either a fence or large hedge enclosing the property. She noted his photograph of her home showed the applicants' vehicles parked in their carport and had been taken during a two-week period they typically removed their boat from storage and prepared it for use in the lake. She pointed out the boat was completely on the applicant's property and not on the street. She clarified the applicants paid to store their boat indoors every winter. Ms. Hirschmann recalled the last two variances approved along Maple Circle were similar to the application and enlarged living space as well as the existing garages. She recalled a petition supporting a variance requested by Lila Leonard had been signed by Rosemary Forester, Bob Young, Gus Antonis and Rolf Pagels, who were opposing the applicant's project. She said the Leonard proposal was for a larger scale project that was City of Lake Oswego Page 7 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 less than 200 feet from the Hirschmann's house. She held the opponents were carrying out a personal vendetta. She said their appeal was not supported by viable reasons, such as that it exceeded standards previously set by the neighborhood. She said her remodeling project was minimal when compared to others allowed along Maple Circle. She said the applicants and a majority of the neighborhood found no basis for the appeal and were eager to see the proposed improvements. She said the applicants had worked carefully with their designer to plan the improvements and felt their project would benefit the neighborhood. She said the staff-required modification had created the need for an extra roof gable and increased the applicants' cost. She said her project had already been reduced to the bare minimum and she requested that further changes requested by the appellants not be required by the City. She noted her designer, Ed Spencer, was present at the hearing. She clarified for Ms. Ostly that the roof deck was most likely constructed around in the early 1970s. Ed Spencer, End Point Design, 4026 NE Sandy Boulevard. Portland, clarified the design of the upper deck (see Exhibit 9) currently featured braces and roof penetrations that were poorly designed. He pointed out on the drawings how the structure was to be rebuilt so the weight of the structure was borne by the outside wall of the garage and eliminated roof penetrations. He presented additional elevation drawings (see Exhibit ) which he explained had been reviewed by the staff. He predicted the design would please the neighbors. Mr. Tracy advised that the structure proposed for the upper deck was outside the existing envelope and an additional analysis was necessary. Mr. Spencer offered to redesign the structural beam so that it stayed within the existing envelope. Proponents Jill Walsworth, 16892 Maple Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified she completely supported the Hirschmann's application. She explained her back yard was adjacent to the applicant's back yard. She said she had seen the drawings of the proposed remodeling project and had discussed them with the applicants. She said the project would be good for the applicant's family and the neighborhood and was in keeping with other homes along Maple Circle. She explained she did not understand some neighbor's objections to the proposal to make a garage out of an existing carport. She recalled other remodeling projects in the area had gone unchallenged by neighbors. She asked that the application be approved. Gary Walsworth, 16892 Maple Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified he could see the applicant's deck from his front door and passed by their home every day. He also indicated complete support of the application. He explained that he had lived along Maple Circle during his childhood and had resided in three different homes there since 1968. He said he had seen the plans and discussed them with the applicants and many neighbors. He opined the application should be approved. He noted a letter in Exhibit G asked that neighborhood considerations be the first priority, but he contended the first priority should be to make the house livable for the applicant's family. He recalled that City of Lake Oswego Page 8 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 historically residents along the street did not oppose applications for variances. He said the new garage would improve the appearance of the house and allow vehicles to be enclosed and off the street. He said the remodeling project would improve the neighborhood and would fit the character of the homes in the area. He expressed his surprise that some neighbors contended the project would block their sunlight when the site was north of their properties and the forward addition was to be five feet. He questioned why it had taken so long to approve an application for a fairly minor change. He opined the changes required by the City brought about an appropriate compromise and the project should not be further delayed. He recalled his father had been allowed to build on what had originally been considered a nonbuildable, undersized lot in that neighborhood and neighbors had written letters to the City to support him. He asked that the application be approved. He clarified for Mr. Horning that the School District's transportation supervisor did not route school buses along Maple Circle for fear they could not be accommodated there. He added that fire trucks could not navigate the street. He recalled instances when he had to pull over to the side of the street to allow another vehicle to pass him on the street. He observed that more vehicles and diagonally parked vehicles along the street had made the situation worse. Opponents Joel Johnson, 16634 Maple Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, pointed out the revised left elevation view of the project showed an "optional open railing." He worried it could be enclosed at a future date. He requested that the applicants be required to maintain it as an open railing. He opined the City had made a reasonable effort to reduce the garage to a scale that was acceptable to the neighborhood. He noted that in Exhibit 12 the applicants had stated they had no intention of seeking another variance in order to change the dimensions of the roof deck and withdrew previously submitted plans to do so in order to work with their designer to create a new plan that would not require a variance. He noted Code language regarding rights granted to a nonconforming structure did not allow an increase in nonconformity. He pointed out the revised elevation views for the left and front sides showed the pitched roof over the garage deck at different heights. He presented his three-dimensional graphic interpretation of the plan (Exhibit K). He noted the stairway shown on his plan was not jogged, as shown in the applicant's revised drawings. He pointed out how timbers and posts were positioned at the southeast corner of the house and opined they created an increase in a nonconforming structure and required a separate variance. Mr. Johnson confirmed for Ms. Binkley that he recalled the applicant's designer's testimony that the structure was to be redesigned. He pointed out on the drawing of the existing structure that if a post was designed so as not to pierce the roof the size of the structure would need to be increased by a 1-foot extension of the deck beyond the current nonconforming use that would create an increase in the nonconforming structure. Mr. Tracy advised that if the rear post was positioned beneath the existing structure it would be within the existing nonconforming envelope. Faith Nagasawa, 16634 Maple Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified that a multi- City of Lake Oswego Page 9 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 trunked tree on the property line had imposed on the applicant's property by .048 inches. She recalled the tree canopy covered one-third of her house, helped moderate temperatures, and was a feature of her native garden. She explained that the tree had passively cooled two bedrooms facing the Hirschmann's property during summer months and after removal of the tree her privacy had been impacted and they were forced to close their blinds more frequently. She said the project would create a higher structure and would make her sideyard darker in an area where her property had a 4.5-foot setback. She recalled they had chosen to place the fence on her side of the property line because the original owner wanted to save two Douglas firs on the opposite side of the fence. She also recalled the Hirschmann's had removed other small screening trees at the time of removal of the large maple tree. She explained that she spent a lot of time in her yard and objected to allowing a situation where people could look down from a high deck into what she considered to be her sanctuary. Rolf Pagels. 16691 Maple Circle. Lake Oswego. 97034. testified the proposed plan would make the applicant's house more attractive. He expressed his disappointment that several other projects in the area that proposed to improve garages had resulted in the garages being used for storage. He said his only concern regarding the application was that the upper deck would be unsightly. Ms. Binkley advised Mr. Pagels that the upper deck was not part of the application and he clarified that he was concerned that approval of the variance could be construed as approval of the deck. He asked that the variance not be approved. Robert S. Young. 16612 Maple Circle. Lake Oswego. 97034. testified he had resided two houses from the site since 1956. He stated he did not object to the proposed garage as long as it conformed to City standards regarding setbacks, height or other specifications that surrounding homes had conformed to in the past. He acknowledged there was encroachment along the street that he found objectionable. He contended the previous owner had not obtained a building permit for the existing nonconforming upper deck and it was unsightly and of questionable use. He recalled it might provide a view of the lake, but it also provided a view of up to eight side yards. He held the deck should not be allowed to be altered or modified in any way. He could not recall any similar structure on top of any other roof in the neighborhood. He expressed his hope for understanding among all parties involved in the issue. Darlene Young. 16612 Maple Circle. Lake Oswego. 97034, recalled she had resided in the area at a time when the site was a vacant lot. She recalled that houses had been constructed on the lake at a time when setbacks were smaller than current setbacks. She expressed her concern that approval of the application would set a precedent. She opined that the increase in the footprint of an already nonconforming structure imposed on privacy. She recalled that she and her husband had believed at the time of construction that the roof deck was intended as a temporary summer structure, so they had not objected to it although they believed it was structurally and aesthetically unsound. She recalled that the installation of a plastic roof over the deck in the front of the house had also detracted from the beauty of the house. She said she did not object to a garage at the site, but she felt that enclosure of the carport made the house seem more massive and City of Lake Oswego Page 10 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 imposing. She said the proposal for a gabled roof over the garage and extension of the deck contributed to the mass of the project. She predicted that the deck would be enclosed at some future date because it featured a roof. She expressed her disappointment that the applicants had removed the large tree, which she believed had helped to manage surface water in the area. She questioned the survey that showed the tree had been one-half inch further onto the Hirschmann's property than on the Johnson's property. She expressed her disappointment that the applicant's had not discussed their proposal with the neighbors prior to mailing the information. Rosemary Forester, 16580 Manle Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034. testified she had resided three houses south of the applicant's residence for 16 years. She said that although it seemed discriminatory that properties along the lake were allowed to do things that people inside the Circle were not allowed to do, the people on the inside needed to safeguard their front yards. She explained she enjoyed her front garden and did not desire to see the front setback get smaller as people developed toward the street. She agreed with the City staff that the front setback at the site was to be kept at 15 feet. She expressed her concern regarding the impact of the massive gabled roof that was being proposed. She noted that different drawings showed the roof peak at the current height and at a lower height. She said she did not object to a deck, but worried the applicants would enclose it. She related the applicant's deck provided a view of her back yard. She expressed her disappointment that a nonconforming structure could be allowed to continue. Neither for nor Against None. Rebuttal Ms. Hirschmann clarified that she could not see into Ms. Forester's backyard from her deck. She stressed the applicants would endeavor to rebuild their deck in a manner that would not require an additional variance and would conform to building permit requirements. She recalled a view of the lake was possible from the deck above the carport just after the house was constructed and until houses were constructed across the street. She said her father had subsequently constructed the upper deck to provide a view of the lake. She said her deck had been in place long before Mr. Johnson and Ms. Nagasawa had moved in next door. She explained that if the applicants intended to enclose the deck over the garage they would have shown that in their request for a variance. She recalled the previous two requests for variances for properties along Maple Circle were to create living space above the garage. She said the application had nothing to do with the loss of trees in the past. Mr. Spencer explained for Ms. Binkley that a scissor truss in the initial drawings was intended to create a more open-looking upper deck and the proposed roof over the carport deck would replace the visually objectionable fiberglass roof. He confirmed that detailing on the front of the garage would match existing house details. City of Lake Oswego Page 11 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 No one requested the hearing be held open to allow time to submit additional evidence. The applicants waived their right to additional time to submit a written final argument. Vice Chair Binkley closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberations Ms. Ostly agreed that a narrower gable would improve the design. She suggested a condition be included that the nonconformity of the upper deck was not to be expanded. Mr. Kiersey agreed that the nonconformity of the upper deck should not be increased. Mr. Horning stressed the improvement should be visually tied to the rest of the structure. He encouraged the applicant to put forth their best efforts to respond to neighborhood concerns. He opined that any style of upper deck would look out of place there, but he supported the staff position and a condition to ensure that any work done there would be within the parameters of the existing nonconforming rights. Vice Chair Binkley observed that the gable roof over the outside deck on the second level would help obscure the upper level deck. She recalled that many older houses in New England featured a "widow's walk" which was incorporated into the roof of the house. She suggested the siding near the gable be similar to the siding of the garage. She also suggested that an increased size of posts on the ends would improve the appearance of the deck. She opined the structure of the decks appeared to be "spindly" but she believed that when the railing components were located closer together (as the Code required) that would make them look more solid. She suggested a condition that the gables over the upper deck and over the garage deck be of a similar design to create more symmetry of design (see Exhibit 9). Mr. Horning noted the drawing showed the gable falling below the top of the roof pitch. Mr. Spencer clarified that the left elevation was not correct. Ms. Binkley suggested a condition that the design of the posts and beams match the existing house or match the proposed garage. Mr. Horning suggested a condition that any remodeling of the current deck was to be within the confines of the current nonconforming status. He noted that would mean that some modifications would be necessary to the structural system or the deck. Mr. Horning moved for annroval of AP 99-07 FLU 99-00041, subject to the conditions in the staff report and the following new and modified conditions: Condition A.(iv.) to allow the rooftop deck, including the structural support, to be rebuilt in the present location, and not as indicated on the exhibits. New Condition D. to require the design of gables over the decks match the design of gables on the existing house or the garage. Mr. Kiersey seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Horning, Binkley, Kiersey and Ostly voting yes. Commissioners Cushing, Morales and Miller were absent. There were no votes against. City of Lake Oswego Page 12 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 Vice Chair Binkley noted the Commission would vote on the written findings on October 18, 1999. She then declared a five-minute recess. LU 99-0039., a request by Mitch Gilbert Architects, for approval to replace an existing 1,310 square foot retail building with a 3,860 square foot office building. In addition, a Class 2 variance is requested to reduce the 10' required parking setback from residentially zoned property to 3 feet. This proposal includes additional landscaping and reconfiguring the parking lot to bring the site into compliance with current standards. The side is located at 15540 Boones Ferry Road, Tax Lot 2800 of Tax Map 21E 8 DB. Vice-Chair Binkley opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. She asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. All commissioners present reported they had visited the site. Vice-Chair Binkley 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, related the site included 7,200 square feet that would be reduced to 6,800 square feet after a 10-foot right-of-way dedication along Boones Ferry Road. He noted that because the site was covered with either pavement or structure there was only one tree there and no other landscaping or sidewalks. He said the surrounding area was primarily zoned General Commercial (GC) except for a single- family parcel to the east that contained a daycare facility - a conditionally allowed institutional use. Mr. Tracy explained the applicant was requesting a Class II Variance to the 10' parking setback between residential and commercial properties. He recommended the variance be granted due to site constraints including the size and configuration of the lot; setback and height limitations; the loss of the 10' area dedicated to right-of-way; and limited opportunity for parking on the site. He clarified that the purpose of the parking setback was to protect residences; however, the daycare facility did not have nighttime residents. He noted that without the variance the building would be limited to 1800 square feet for an office use or another use with a lesser parking requirement. He also advised that redevelopment of the site with a smaller sized building was economically unfeasible. He related the proposed site plan would maintain a 4' wide landscaped area between the sidewalk and street and improve drainage with new curbs and catch basins. He concluded that the unique circumstances associated with the site and the lack of impact on the most directly affected abutting residentially zoned property supported the granting of a variance. He advised that the site could be landscaped and still comply with Parking and Onsite Circulation standards and the requested 3' setback was the minimum necessary to accommodate a 4' landscaping buffer. Mr. Tracy related the proposed façade was brick veneer, similar to two nearby buildings. City of Lake Oswego Page 13 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 He noted that concrete roof tiles and precast concrete medallions would accent the building. He held that although the architectural style varied somewhat from other buildings along Boones Ferry Road the building complemented other nearby buildings that featured good design and similar materials and would provide a good transition between the commercial district and the neighborhood. He explained the building met the zone's height requirement; however, because the proposed height of the structure contrasted with a single story flat roof structure immediately south of the site and a 1.5- story hip-roofed office building to the north staff desired to reduce the perception of height by suggesting the chimney accents be eliminated. He related the applicant had subsequently reduced the mass of the Boones Ferry Road facing gable and by reducing the building height slightly (see Exhibits 6 and 10). He noted the applicant had replaced the originally proposed medallions with windows on the third story level of the north and south elevations. He recommended the medallions should remain to reduce the perspective of height. He advised the proposed portico was directly accessible from Red Cedar Way and the parking area and 13' from the corner of Boones Ferry Road. He related the neighborhood favored an entryway that was directly accessible from Boones Ferry Road; however, that alternative would result in an awkward interior arrangement or severing of pedestrian circulation between the parking area and the main entrance. He advised the building design met the City's Building Design Standards. Mr. Tracy advised the proposed 6.5' wide monument sign was disproportional large from a pedestrian perspective. He noted the message area was to be 4' x 5'. He recommended the monument sign be 4' tall x 5' wide with the same amount of message area. He recommended approval of the application subject to the recommended conditions in the staff report. He clarified for Mr. Kiersey that the Code required at least an 8' wide sidewalk and the 10' right of way dedication was calculated with the impacts of the development and anticipated future improvements along the roadway in mind. He related the neighborhood had requested a 10' wide sidewalk. He clarified that currently only one of two originally proposed monument signs was proposed for the north side of the site. (See Exhibit 12.). He advised the 7' wide sidewalk along Red Cedar complied with the Code, but staff recommended the 5' width sidewalk be maintained to the driveway apron and then extended in order to discourage pedestrian traffic into the neighborhood. Applicant Mitch Gilbert, Architect. 239 NW 135th, Ste 209. Portland. 97209. testified he represented Mary Jo Avery, the property owner. He introduced Ms. Avery, Larry Walker, leasing agent; Frank Charbonneau, traffic engineer; and Charles Rosenfeld, landscape architect. He proposed to remove the existing building and build a larger building with a less-intensive parking use. He said the new building would be pedestrian and bicycle-friendly because it would be near the street with windows all along both streets. He said parking was planned in the rear of the building to avoid a "shopping center" appearance. He said landscaping at the site would exceed the City's 15% requirement and street trees would be planted along both streets. He noted the abutting residential use was a preschool and helped buffer the neighborhood. He said the existing fence would be retained and landscaping would screen the parking area from the pre- City of Lake Oswego Page 14 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 school. He noted the driveway access to Boones Ferry Road would be removed and the only access would be from Red Cedar Way. He related that the applicant was negotiating a future easement so their driveway would connect with adjacent uses and help to reduce traffic on Boones Ferry Road. Mr. Gilbert explained the 10' right-of-way dedication would further reduce the small site and had created the need for a variance. He clarified for Ms. Binkley that the building would be faced with brick. Mary Jo Avery. 1575 Via Jala Ct, Lake Oswego. 97034. explained she envisioned an east coast look for the building that people would find pleasing to look at. She asked for approval of the variance for the back of the building and she reminded the Commission that she had given up land in front of the building for the right of way. She explained the entryway had not been positioned to face Boones Ferry Road in order to present the front of the building to people viewing it from the intersection and to provide a safer entry. She asked for approval of the application. Larry Walker. 16771 SW Maple Circle. Lake Oswego. 97034. explained that the applicant had determined that it was not economically feasible to use the existing building at the site because the rent she could expect would not be more than $12.00 to $13.00 per square foot and would create a situation of negative cash flow. He said they had subsequently explored the possibility of remodeling the building for prospective tenants and had determined the cost would be $30,000 to $50,000 to attract a national credit tenant; the lease rate would be $17.00 per square foot; and the applicant's negative cash flow would be $12,000 per year. He indicated that the market demand for office space meant that a new two-story office building would provide rental income of$23.00 to $24.00 per square foot and would create a small positive cash flow the first year. Frank Charbonneau, Charbonneau Engineering LLC. One SW Columbia. Ste 1685. Portland. 97258. testified his firm had accomplished the traffic study for the project which had projected that 50% of the traffic would be to and from an office facility south on Boones Ferry Road and 50% to and from the north, with half of that percentage going via Kruse Way. He noted that the existing access to Boones Ferry Road was to be eliminated and the site would share a driveway with neighbors to the south. He said the access on Red Cedar Way would operate at Level of Service A under all conditions. He said a comparison with of an office facility with a retail facility resulted in 6 trips per day compared with 3 trips per day. He said a restaurant with a drive-through would generate 10 times as much traffic as an office facility. Charles S. Rosenfeld, Landscape Architect. 7785 NW Stark Street. Portland, 97209. clarified that Knickknickt was to be planted between the sidewalk and the street and the existing 2' wide planting strip would be increased by 2 feet to create a 4' x 4' well for street trees. Mr. Gilbert explained that an attic window was proposed to replace the 30" diameter medallion. Mr. Tracy clarified for Ms. Binkley that there was to be a light at Red Cedar Way to illuminate the parking lot. Mr. Rosenfeld clarified for Mr. Horning that stepping stones were proposed to allow pedestrians to pass through the arborvitae. City of Lake Oswego Page 15 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 Proponents Ed Buchman. 15001 Twin Fir, Lake Oswego, 97035. Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, complemented the applicant on the design of the building, but he suggested that a wall (possibly brick) should be constructed along the property line between the daycare facility and the parking lot to protect the children there. He noted instances where vehicles had driven into buildings in the area. He also requested that a pedestrian access be located at the southern end of the parking lot to let pedestrians cut through to the adjacent businesses. He indicated the Association would support the applicant if she agreed to the suggested changes. He clarified for Mr. Horning that there had been curb stops at the hardware store and a vehicle was still driven into the building wall. Joline Sanetel , Assistant Manager for Lake Music, stated she liked the applicant's plans. She related the music store's display window was 23 feet from the sidewalk. She requested that no signs or landscaping on the site be allowed to block the view of the store's window. Matt Finnigan. 3700 Upper Drive. Lake Oswego. 97035, expressed his appreciation that the applicant had made adjustments in response to neighborhood concerns. He worried about the safety of children playing in the area. He suggested that pilings be installed to stop cars from driving into the adjacent play area. He also requested some type of onsite catch basin for storm water be installed on the site. He stated he supported the medallion detail instead of the attic window so the structure would not appear to be a three-story building. Opponents None. Neither for nor Against None. Rebuttal Mr. Gilbert explained the applicant planned to install a curb to stop vehicles, but a bollard would be more effective. He opined the music store window would not be blocked by the development because of the angle of the street in the vicinity. He asked that a future second sign at the site not be prohibited because it might be necessary to for drivers coming from the south. He noted that increased landscaping would help reduce storm water runoff at the site and worried about the cost of an additional storm water-related facility at the site. Ms. Avery stated she appreciated the support of the neighborhood association. She worried that a wall made of bricks might not be strong enough to protect children. She said the attic windows were aesthetically necessary to the design of the building and the medallions were not the right size for the building. She promised to City of Lake Oswego Page 16 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 make the builder aware that paint and other contaminants were not to be poured into the storm water system. No one requested the record be held open for submission of additional evidence or testimony. The applicant waived the right to provide a final written argument. Vice Chair Binkley closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberation Ms. Ostly commented that a bollard system would be a reasonable requirement. She also stated she did not mind the attic window detail. Mr. Kiersey agreed the window was a better type of detail for the building and that bollards should be installed. Mr. Horning suggested the attic window be reduced in size so it would not resemble a room-sized window. He opined the upper space warranted a bigger detail than a medallion. Vice Chair Binkley agreed. Mr. Gilbert pointed out the window shown in the exhibit was shorter than regular windows. Mr. Pishvaie clarified for the commissioners that the recommended condition of approval was for a portico sign and a 4' tall by 5' wide monument sign that would be an appropriate scale for the surroundings. Mr. Tracy advised the Sign Code would allow a second sign on the site if the second frontage was at least 300 feet. Mr. Kiersey asked if the sign could be repositioned to be visible to drivers from both directions. Mr. Pishvaie clarified that address signs could be considered incidental signs and positioned on the grounds. Mr. Kiersey moved for approval of LU 99-0039, subject to the conditions in the staff report, modified as follows: Condition A.(5.): Eliminate the requirement for precast medallions on the ends of the building. Condition A.(3.)(c.): Require erosion control during construction to keep the downstream drainage free of construction debris. New Condition A.(7.)(c.) An effective bollard or barrier system is to be installed along the east property line to protect children from runaway vehicles. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Horning, Binkley, Kiersey and Ostly voting yes. Commissioners Cushing, Morales and Miller were absent. There were not votes against. Vice Chair Binkley advised the final decision was to be made upon the adoption of the written findings on October 18, 1999. City of Lake Oswego Page 17 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999 LU 99-0018. a request by Stephen Fuller for approval of a 4' Class II variance to the side yard setback in order to construct a new 2 story office building, approximately 7,800 sq. ft. in size. The site is located at 16001 Quarry Road, Lake Oswego, Tax Lot 2100 of Tax Map 21E 7DA. Mr. Pishvaie related that the applicant had requested the hearing be continued to October 18, 1999 and waived the 120-day countdown for the two-week interim period. Mr. Kiersey moved to continue LU 99-0018. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Horning, Binkley, Kiersey and Ostly voting yes. Commissioners Cushing, Morales and Miller were not present. There were no votes against. VI. GENERAL PLANNING None. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Vice Chair Binkley adjourned the meeting at 11: 08 PM. Respectfully submitted. Janice Benn Senior Secretary 1:\dre\minutes\mintemp.doc City of Lake Oswego Page 18 of 18 Development Review Commission Minutes of October 4, 1999