Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2026-04-20 PM lip�I.; CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes .1111 April 20, 2026 OQEGOr' The Commissioners convened at 6:33 PM. Members Present: Chair Larry Linstrom, John Dewes, Kristen Bates, Dwight Sangrey (arrived at 6:50 PM), Helen Leek, and Meetal Salunkhe Members Absent: Vice Chair Yuko Mino, and Ali Afghan, City Council Liaison Staff Present: Johanna Hastay, Planning Manager; Souvanny Miller, Consulting Attorney; Will Farley, Assistant City Engineer; Ellen Davis, Senior Planner; Evan Fransted, Senior Planner; and Kat Kluge, Administrative Assistant ** Appeared remotely. Chair Linstrom asked if there were any changes to the agenda. There were no replies. MINUTES March 16, 2026: There were no revisions noted. Commissioner Leek moved to approve the Minutes of March 16, 2026, as written. Seconded by Commissioner Bates and passed 5:0 (YEA- Linstrom, Dewes, Bates, Salunkhe, & Leek/ NAY- n/a). PUBLIC HEARINGS LU 25-0045: A request for a Major Variance to enclose and expand an existing nonconforming carport, located approximately 1.2 feet from the rear property line and within a required setback. This site is located at 757 4th St. (Tax Reference 21E03DA06200). The Staff Coordinator was Ellen Davis, Senior Planner. Chair Linstrom formally opened the Public Hearing. Souvanny Miller, Consulting Attorney, provided an overview of the applicable criteria and procedures. DRC members were asked to declare any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases, or financial conflicts of interest. All DRC members declared that they had not made a site visit, and Respect. Excel'ence. Trust. Servic. 503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY that they had no ex parte contacts, conflicts of interest, and no bias. Chair Linstrom noted that he had worked with Ralph Tahran on a project four years ago. There were no challenges to the Commissioners' rights to consider the application. Ms. Miller outlined the public hearing process. Staff Report Ellen Davis, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The property is located across the street from the Lake Oswego Public Library. The existing detached carport is accessed via the alley and is nonconforming to the minimum required rear (15 feet versus 1.2 feet). The Applicant's proposal would expand the width by four feet and fully enclose the structure by adding a garage door. Due to the existing nonconformity, approval of a Major Variance (LOC 50.08.004) is required. Criteria: Unnecessary Hardship - an enclosed 2-car garage is a reasonable expectation of a residential dwelling, the physical circumstance is the existing site layout (bringing the site to code would increase impervious surface area and change the pattern of development), and the hardship was not self-created (the existing carport was built approximately 100 years ago); Not Injurious to the Neighborhood -garages within the rear yard setback are typical of the area, retaining the existing structure preserves the current pattern of development, minimizes grading and new impervious surfaces, and no public comments were received; and, Minimum Variance Necessary-the 4-foot wide expansion and enclosure turns the existing carport into a enclosed garage approximately 22 feet in width which is typical of a 2-car garage, and improves usability for two vehicles on a daily basis. Staff finds that all three criteria are met and recommends approval. Questions of Staff None Chair Linstrom invited the Applicant forward and explained their testimony time limits and the lighted timing system. Ms. Miller gave instructions for any public verbal testimony provided. Applicant Testimony Ralph Tahran, Architect and the Applicant's Representative, thanked Ms. Davis for the full and excellent description of their project. He stated that he was happy to see a recommendation for approval from staff. Development Review Commission Minutes April 20, 2026 Page 2 of 8 Tyler McCleary, Project Manager, stated that he had nothing to add to their presentation. Questions of Applicant None Public Testimony None Ms. Miller asked the Applicant if they wished to submit a final written argument. Mr. Tahran waived this submission. Chair Linstrom closed the public hearing and directed members into deliberations. Deliberations Commissioner Leek stated that this application was straight-forward and conformed to other applications seen from this neighborhood. Commissioner Dewes moved to approve LU 25-0045, as conditioned in the Staff Report. Seconded by Commissioner Bates and passed 5:0 (YEA- Linstrom, Dewes, Bates, Salunkhe, & Leek/ NAY— n/a), with 1 abstention (Sangrey). Ms. Miller instructed staff to return the Written Findings, Conclusion, and Order on May 4, 2026, at 6:00 PM, via Zoom (as agreed to by all members). ************************ LU 25-0036: A request for a Development Review Permit for two mixed-use buildings (office and residential) in the West Lake Grove (WLG) Design District and removal of 22 trees for construction. This site is located at 16650 Boones Ferry Rd. (Tax Reference 21E07DD02200). The Staff Coordinator was Evan Fransted, Senior Planner. Chair Linstrom formally opened the Public Hearing. Souvanny Miller, Consulting Attorney, provided an overview of the applicable criteria and procedures. DRC members were asked to declare any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases, or financial conflicts of interest. All DRC members declared that they had not made a site visit, but many were familiar with its location, and that they had no ex parte contacts, conflicts of interest, and no bias. Commissioner Leek noted that she was familiar with the Applicants because of her work in real estate. Chair Linstrom noted that he had worked with Ralph Tahran on a project four years ago. There were no challenges to the Commissioners' rights to consider the application. Development Review Commission Minutes April 20, 2026 Page 3 of 8 Ms. Miller outlined the public hearing process. Staff Report Prior to providing their presentation, Evan Fransted, Senior Planner, added Exhibits G-501 to G- 508 to the record (all written testimony in opposition). The site is approximately 27,680 sq. ft., with frontage on Boones Ferry Road (BFR), a major arterial. It is located in the WLG Design District and zoned WLG Residential Mixed Use (WLG RMU). The surrounding properties are zoned WLG RMU, WLG Office Commercial (OC), WLG R-2.5, or are located in Clackamas County, and are developed with commercial and residential dwellings or are vacant. The Applicant is proposing the construction of two buildings and a 23-space parking lot, with three of the spaces being removed later for access to abutting properties. The structures comply with the required front yard, special street, and south side yard setbacks. The public improvements include an 8-foot wide sidewalk, a 5-foot wide landscaping buffer, a 5-foot wide bike lane, two 11-foot wide travel lanes in both directions, and a 6-foot wide median. Four covered bicycle parking spaces will be provided near Building B, and a 2-space bicycle rack will be provided outside of Building A. The code no longer implements minimum parking requirements (per State mandate); thus, it is not something that the city can dictate. Pedestrian and vehicle circulation plans were shown. The proposed 20-foot wide parking lot connection to the south property meets the access lane dimensional standards (addressing the concerns raised in Exhibit G-500). Building A is a 5,000 sq. ft., single-story commercial office building, which will serve customers or clients on the premises. The building complies with the 35-foot maximum height requirement. Building B is a 4,722 sq. ft., 3-story mixed use building, with office space on the ground floor and four residential units on the upper floors. This building complies with the 35-foot maximum height requirement. Renderings of the buildings were shown. The proposed design is in the English Country architectural style (borrowing elements from the American Rustic and Arts and Crafts styles). The proposed buildings are similar to scale and materials to the buildings on the abutting properties to the east and on the corner of BFR and Madrona Street. They will include vertically-oriented, proportional glass windows (clear on the ground floor) and earth-toned materials with dark grey stone at the base, white shingle and stucco siding, brown lap and board/batten siding, and stained heavy timber. The facade along BFR does not include any blank walls and does not exceed linear 25 feet of uninterrupted wall plane. The ground floor windows and storefront have divided light, and Condition of Approval (CoA) A.1 requires the Applicant to submit revised elevation plans that show the upper floors with double-hung windows or divided light. The two proposed buildings include different scale and massing from each other. Staff finds that, as conditioned, the design meets all applicable WLG design standards. There are 44 trees onsite that are six inches or more in diameter at breast height (DBH). As part of this development, the Applicant is proposing to remove 22 trees (eight invasive trees will be removed under a separate permit) and retain 14 trees. The trees for removal include various Development Review Commission Minutes April 20, 2026 Page 4 of 8 species that range in size from 6"-34" DBH. The majority of the "substantial trees," that contribute to the "landmark status" of the District are in the central portion of the site, where the buildings or parking lot are proposed for construction. There are no feasible alternatives to the removal of these trees, as explored by the Applicant. Three of the "substantial trees" to be retained (Trees#15, #16, and #27) are considered as contributing to the "landmark status" of the of the District and, as such, ensure compliance with WLG Subsection 4.h. Staff finds that the Type II Tree Removal criteria are met, as there are no feasible alternatives to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Of the 32 mitigation trees, 16 must be native. The landscaping plan was shown. A 6-foot tall fence will be installed along the south property line. The site contains 40.1% open space and landscaping set aside, which meets the minimum requirement of 40%. Nine street trees will be planted in compliance with the street tree standards. The Applicant is requesting payment in lieu of planting 18 of the Type II mitigation trees. Staff concurs with the Applicant that planting all 34 mitigation trees is not practical on this site due to the smaller lot size, configuration of the lot, and preservation of the existing trees; however, staff finds that an additional three trees can be planted along the south property line (CoAs A.11 and A.12). In conclusion, staff finds that the proposal can be made to comply with all applicable criteria as conditioned and recommends approval of LU 25-0036. Questions of Staff Noting the mention of future parking space removal in one of the slides, Commissioner Leek asked if there was going to be a connection built to the southernly properties. Mr. Fransted affirmed that there would be a 20-foot wide vehicle access easement, to provide the required parking lot connection as required in the District. Commissioner Salunkhe inquired after the City's preference regarding contributing to the tree fund versus allowing for off-site mitigation. Mr. Fransted replied that off-site planting was allowed if the property owner owned a different piece of property, but in this case, the Applicant requested to pay into the tree fund. Chair Linstrom invited the Applicant forward and explained their testimony time limits and the lighted timing system. Ms. Miller gave instructions for any public verbal testimony provided. Applicant Testimony Hal Keever, with HGK Consulting and the Applicant's Representative, spoke about the timeline of the project and the review of the staff report; concurring with the CoAs. He expressed his concern over how the easement to the southerly abutting property was mandated (positing that he believed it to be illegal to require it) and his disappointment that this would require the loss of two parking spaces, along with the potential for future problems over parking or traffic circulation for their residents or tenants. He stated that he hoped that abutting property, in the future, could use the proposed connecting extension of the street across BFR to Upper Drive (per the City's Development Review Commission Minutes April 20, 2026 Page 5 of 8 Comprehensive and Transportation System Plans) for easier egress/ingress to access their property and BFR (the intersection will be signalized). Ralph Tahran, Architect, thanked Mr. Fransted for his assistance in walking through the requirements of the WLG Design District. He then explained their logic in choosing the designs of the buildings. Questions of Applicant None Public Testimony In Opposition Susan Rana**, Lake Oswego Resident, shared that she lived on one of the properties below the southerly abutting property recently mentioned. She then shared highlights from her written testimony at Exhibit G-505 and voiced concerns over the potential increase in traffic. John Reeves, Lake Oswego Property Owner, brought to attention the concerns raised in this written testimony at Exhibit G-500 and explained how he will still be land-locked in because they are installing a "spite-strip" (the access lane paving does not come to the edge of his property with utilities). He requested that the City require that a 24-foot wide access easement, that the lane be constructed to the property line by the Applicant, and that he be allowed a 10-foot wide utility easement from his property out to BFR, within the vehicle easement (doing this will also allow development on the property located to his west). He relayed that he informed the Applicant that he would allow overflow parking onto his property, thus becoming an asset to them. Commissioner Dewes requested confirmation that the utilities could be located within the access easement itself. Mr. Reeve confirmed that he was asking for 24-foot in width in total. Commissioner Dewes then asked where the "spite strip" was occurring. Mr. Reeves pointed to the edge of his property, where there was a gravel strip, rather than the access lane and utilities; adding that he could not legally cross that without permission from the property owner (this has not yet been allowed). Commissioner Dewes requested that staff explain whether this lack of full access would be an issue. Mr. Fransted explained that full access would be granted when Mr. Reeve submitted his own application to develop his property (this Applicant could not deny access); adding that this was similar to what members saw with the development of the housing project on the corner of West Sunset Drive. Mr. Fransted further explained that the connectivity was only required for vehicle access, not for connection to utilities, per the WLGD standards. Ms. Hastay provided additional details of the WLG standards; adding that utilities for Mr. Reeves would need to be dealt with later. Mr. Reeves restated his concern about the promise that was made during his earlier rezone application. Commissioner Sangrey asked for a description of the documentation of the transactions from 10 to 12 years ago that led to this creation of Mr. Reeves property. Mr. Reeves relayed that this went Development Review Commission Minutes April 20, 2026 Page 6 of 8 through the Planning Commission and the City Council, who unanimously voted to proceed, and that it was documented in the staff report from that time. Ms. Hastay reminded members that Mr. Reeve's previous application was for rezoning only, not for development, that they were not looking at anything to do with Mr. Reeve's property as part of this application, and that this easement dealt with parking and circulation. Commissioner Salunkhe inquired whether there was a time frame for providing access without causing undue hardship for developing the abutting property. Ms. Hastay stated that the easement would run with the property regardless of who owned it and there would be no language restricting it from construction access during development. Michael Coyne, Lake Oswego Resident, pointed to the lack of parking in the area; acknowledging that this was not a code issue. He requested that this be considered when looking at this application. Commissioner Leek recommended that Mr. Coyne speak to his State Representative about this issue because the DRC members could not consider it due to the change in code that removed minimum parking requirements. Courtney Blommer, Lake Oswego Resident, offered additional details to her written testimony regarding the tree removals (Exhibit G-508). Janet Paul, representing the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association (LGNA), stated that the Board of the LGNA agreed with Ms. Blommer's assessment of the trees proposed for removal. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Keever stated that he wanted to address Mr. Reeves' testimony; explaining that they will be providing access, as required in the CoAs, and that there were no "spite strips" to be installed (they were against the State law). With regard to utilities, Mr. Reeves will need to find a solution for this issue himself since the subject property was uphill from Mr. Reeves' property (utilities flow downhill and a pump station may need to be installed). Ms. Miller asked if anyone wished to hold the record open for further submissions from the public. No requests were heard. Ms. Miller then asked the Applicant if they wished to submit a final written argument. Mr. Keever waived this submission. Chair Linstrom closed the public hearing and directed members into deliberations. Deliberations Commissioner Dewes stated that he understood the concerns raised regarding the trees; agreeing that the preservation of the trees was one of the most significant attributes of the City's code but at the same time, the code allowed for development on properties. He opined that, based on what was presented, the design plans fit within the code and that he saw no reason that it would not be approved. Development Review Commission Minutes April 20, 2026 Page 7 of 8 Commissioner Leek added that this application met the requirements under today's tree code but it probably would not meet it in another four to five months, based on what they learned last week. Chair Linstrom asked staff to confirm that under the Type II Criterion 3 exceptions were met. Mr. Fransted affirmed that the exceptions were met because no feasible alternatives to the tree removals were found. Commissioner Dewes moved to approve LU 25-0036, as conditioned in the staff report. Seconded by Commissioner Leek and passed 6:0 (YEA- Linstrom, Dewes, Bates, Salunkhe, Leek, & Sangrey / NAY— n/a). Ms. Miller instructed staff to return the Written Findings, Conclusion, and Order on May 4, 2026, at 6:00 PM, via Zoom (as agreed to by all members). SCHEDULE REVIEW AND MANAGEMENT UPDATE Ms. Hastay updated DRC members on upcoming meetings: May 4, 2026 has the two sets of Findings from this meeting. There were no other applications ready to schedule for hearings at this point. Ms. Hastay relayed a request from the City for members to participate in the 2026 Urban and Community Forestry Workshop series, to start on Saturday, April 25, 2026 with tree plantings in Westlake Park and tree pruning in Foothills Park, to be followed by other events throughout the spring (additional information could be found on the City's webpage). Chair Linstrom asked if Ms. Hastay could provide additional details regarding the open City Council seat. Ms. Hastay replied that she believed that this open seat would be up for election in May and that members could check the City Council's webpage for more information. ADJOURNMENT Chair Linstrom thanked City staff and DRC members for their time, then adjourned the meeting at 8:14 PM. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kat Kluge, Administrative Support Development Review Commission Minutes April 20, 2026 Page 8 of 8