Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2009-12-21 4A1IE 010.26 mw, . --,,,„,„ / , --\\\ City of Lake Oswego _-_= + Development Review Commission Minutes \�.. \% December 21, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Alby Heredia called the Development Review Commission (DRC) meeting of December 21, 2009, to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chair Alby Heredia, Bob Needham, Frank Rossi and Peter Scott. Vice Chair Gregg B. Creighton, Don Richards, and Krystyna Stadnik were not present. Staff present: Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner, Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support. III. MINUTES After the Commissioners corrected the drafts Mr. Needham moved to approve the Minutes of November 2, 2009 as corrected. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed 4:0, Mr. Needham moved to approve the Minutes of November 16, 2009.. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER LU 09-0029, a request by Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church The Commissioners modified the draft findings to require the first review to be within six months after the start of the first academic year. A neighborhood meeting was to be held during the 60 days prior to the review. Mr. Needham moved to approve LU 09-0029-1714 Findings, Conclusions & Order. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 09-0036, a request by BBMJA, LLC, for approval of a major modification of an approved Conditional Use Permit (CU 4-96) in the Westlake Village commercial center, as follows: • Modify Condition 2 in order to increase the maximum square footage of restaurant use allowed in any one building from 2,500 square feet to the maximum limit of 4,100 square feet. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 7 Minutes of December 21,2009 • Repeal Condition 4 that requires a minimum of 1,600 square feet of the total restaurant space to be limited for business to evening hours only, after 5:00 p.m. This change will allow the entire 4,100 square feet of restaurant use to operate continually all day. Location of Property: 14511 Westlake Drive (Tax Lot 107 of Tax Map 21E06). Chair Heredia opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), bias and conflict of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. Mr. Rossi reported that he sometimes bought coffee at the site, but had not discussed the application with anyone there. Each of the Commissioners present declared their business or occupation as follows: Heredia (real estate appraiser); Needham (retired lawyer); Rossi (architectural drafter and designer); and Scott (engineering design). No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Staff Report Debra Andreades, Senior Planner, presented the staff report (dated December 11, 2009). She explained the site was the commercial portion of the R-5 zoned Westlake Planned Development. The aerial view showed the buildings, parking lot and access points. The site plan showed the current uses. A shared parking analysis had been used to reduce the total number of required parking spaces. The existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) limited the total amount of restaurant use in the entire complex and in any one building and limited some of the restaurant operating hours to evenings. The applicant wanted to expand those limits. Ms. Andreades discussed conditional use criteria. Staff had found the site was physically capable of accommodating the proposed use and that the functional characteristics of the site could be made reasonably compatible with the neighborhood if the recommended conditions of approval were applied. The shared parking analysis and the fact that the development had been at full occupancy when the original CUP was granted demonstrated the parking requirement could be met on site. The staff recommended conditions of approval required annual parking reviews to ensure that the impact of a larger restaurant would be addressed. They called for re-striping the existing parking lot to create 100 parking spaces. They also addressed other impacts, such as lighting, cooking odors and noise. During the questioning period, Ms. Andreades reported that the development was violating an original CUP requirement to provide 100 parking spaces. There were currently 97 spaces, but the applicant could re-stripe the site to provide 100 spaces and rectify that condition. After the staff report had been issued, the Police had responded to complaints about lighting at the center and found that a vendor's lit signs were on past the time they were allowed to be on. The owners were aware they needed to deal with that to be in compliance. So that activity could be rectified. She clarified the proposed operating hours for restaurant use: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. That City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 7 Minutes of December 21,2009 use was currently only allowed to operate in the evenings. She explained the 2007 parking study had been submitted to support a previous request to expand another restaurant at the site at that time, but that application had been withdrawn. Applicant Jerry Offer, OTAK. 17355 Booties Ferry Road. represented, BBMJA. LLC, owner of Westlake Village Center. He said they agreed with the staff report and the recommended conditions of approval. He said the site could accommodate 100 parking spaces, including all the necessary handicapped spaces. The applicant. wanted to be allowed to wait until spring or summer to repaint them. He confirmed that the pizza vendor at the site had left some of their lighted signs on after hours. But historically neighbors kept a close watch on the site and let the City know when they saw any violations. Mr. Offer recalled that the neighbors had opposed the 2007 application because they worried it had more of a "bar" element to it. But they had learned about the current plan at a neighborhood meeting and supported it. They believed the health of the center reflected the health of the neighborhood. The restaurant that wanted to expand was an existing coffee shop and delicatessen, so neighbors had experience with how it was operated. In addition, the property owner and the homeowners association had negotiated a private agreement to limit the amount of amplified music and prohibit gambling in Westlake Village. Bart Bartholomew. BBMIA, LCC, resolved a question of whether the lot had ever been striped for 100 spaces by confirming it once had 100 spaces, but had been re-striped later. Proponents Peter Stallings, 5466 Westfield Ct., a member of the Westlake Homeowners Association board of directors, confirmed that the Association supported the application and that the property owner and the Association had negotiated a side agreement to ensure there would be no gambling and to limit the amount of amplified music outside the buildings. There was no other public testimony. Deliberations No one asked the DRC to keep the hearing open for additional testimony. Chair Heredia closed public testimony. The applicant waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Needham, Heredia and Rossi observed the conditions of approval addressed concerns about the conformity of use and parking. Mr. Heredia noted the review process they required encouraged the applicant to cooperate with the neighbors. Mr. Needham moved to approve LU 09-0036. Mr. Rossi seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Chair Heredia announced the final vote would be conducted on January 4, 2010. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 7 Minutes of December 21,2009 LU 08-0057, a request by Steve Wong and Juanita Bode for approval of the following: • Delineation of a Resource Protection (RP) district boundary; • A 9-lot single-family residential planned development; and, • Removal of 15 trees for site development activities. Location of Property: 5337 & 5431 Bonita Road (Tax Lots 1000 and 1100 of Tax Map 21 E07AB). Chair Heredia opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), bias and conflict of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. Mr. Needham reported he had visited the site. Each of the Commissioners present declared their business or occupation as follows: Heredia (real estate appraiser); Needham (retired lawyer); Rossi (planning design coordinator); and Scott (engineering design). No one present challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. Staff Report Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated December 11, 2009). She advised the site was in the R-7.5 zone and along a major collector street. She described the surrounding zoning and uses and the stream corridor and wetlands associated with Carter Creek that were on the site. She reported that staff had found that the proposed RP district delineation met code standards in a ministerial decision. The DRC decision was regarding the proposed Planned Development (PD) and tree removal. She explained the applicable zone standards. She advised that the applicant was proposing the minimum allowable density of nine lots (maximum allowed density was 11 lots). Three of the lots would be flag lots. The flag lots were subject to special requirements for access, front orientation, height and buffering. All lots except Lot 8 met the R-7.5 zone's 7,500 square feet minimum lot size. The applicant wanted exceptions so they could vary some lot dimension standards and setbacks on some lots. Ms. Hastay advised that PD overlay criteria allowed exceptions if the result was the same or a better sense of privacy and appropriate scale and open space. She described the requested exceptions in detail, including two that would allow the smaller Lot 8 and would allow development on irregularly shaped Lot 5 to look similar to what was on the other lots. She corrected the staff report to clarify that they had not requested a front yard exception on Lot 5. Ms. Hastay advised the applicant could have asked for RP buffer averaging, but they proposed to put the entire RP district and buffer into a conservation easement instead;that was 35% of their site. It also helped protect residents of the development from the commercial buildings and parking lots to the north. The applicant was also protecting some native Oregon White Oak trees on the site. Staff had found the proposed tree removal complied with code criteria for removal. The 15 trees proposed for removal were necessary to accommodate street improvements. Most of them were City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 7 Minutes of December 21, 2009 smaller fruit or landscaping trees. The more significant trees were to be preserved. Staff recommended the DRC approve the application subject to conditions of approval listed in the staff report. During the questioning period, Ms. Hastay was asked if placing homes ten feet apart was allowed. She confirmed that was possible, because the zone allowed a combined total of 15 feet per set of side yard setbacks if the house was at or under 18 feet high. The smallest allowable setback was five feet. She confirmed the Engineering staff had been talking about the required street improvements on Bonita Road with county staff and trying to work out differences in street development standards because eventually this segment of the road would be annexed to the City. The applicant had been asked to consider designing two access points, but they felt the single access was better design. She pointed out the landscape plan showed a conceptual building envelope on each lot. The location of each envelope had been set in order to avoid impacting the Oregon white oak trees. The conditions of approval required the applicant to adhere to that plan. She was asked if the developer could decide to build higher structures. She clarified the code related allowable height to allowable lot coverage and the allowable lot coverage was applied to the entire site, and not lot-by-lot. So if the applicant wanted to build homes higher than 22 feet they would have to re- evaluate the lot coverage of the entire PD. Applicant Ken Sandblast. Planning Resources, 17690 Boones Ferry Road, and Ralph Tahran, 13741 Knaus Rd, testified on behalf of the applicant. They explained they designed the development and identified where each house footprint would be after they gave full protection to the RP district and protected the Oregon white oaks. They also positioned each footprint for maximum privacy. They believed the proposed plan offered more privacy than most subdivisions did. They said the applicant wanted to build single-family detached houses at the minimum allowed density. The requested exceptions helped make the development look like a single-family residential neighborhood. There would be a six-space parking tract on site because the internal street was narrow and they were not sure parking would be allowed on Bonita Road. One of the exhibits that showed seven spaces was not correct. They had transferred the area that would have been the seventh space to Lot 8 to make it larger. They reported the neighbors at the neighborhood meeting favored the minimum density, single-family development over a multifamily development and they wanted the oak trees protected. During the questioning period, the applicant's representatives anticipated the range of house sizes would be 3,600 to 3,800 square feet. They confirmed the footprints on the plans would accommodate that size house. They explained City policy would not allow the additional parking spaces to be located in a setback, so they made it a tract. They clarified the development met the parking requirement without the tract and the Code did not require such a tract. It would serve as guest parking. They confirmed the parking aisle was adequate for a parking lot. Ms. Hastay clarified the proposed cul-de-sac would be a public street and would be maintained by the City. The City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 7 Minutes of December 21,2009 Engineering staff was negotiating with the county to allow a bioswale along Bonita Road. Mr. Sandblast said the applicant found the conditions of approval acceptable. Neither for nor Against Laurel Mahar, 5165 SW Carman Drive, testified on behalf of her mother, who owned Tax Lot 705 on the east side of the site. She asked for a "good neighbor"fence along the entire length of Tax Lots 705 and 708. She wanted to know what a "wildlife friendly"fence was. Ms. Hastay clarified the Sensitive Lands Ordinance required a wildlife friendly fence. That was a fence that was high enough off the ground to allow animals to go under it and low enough that animals could get over it. She pointed out where it would start and where it would go back into the RP district. But she clarified that a regular, six-foot fence was to be installed along the remainder of the common property line, including the boundary with Mahar's mother's property. Ms. Mahar wanted to know if pathways or sidewalks would be installed along Bonita Road. She said the neighborhood preferred pathways. But that issue was outside the scope of DRC consideration of the current application. She worried about overflow parking if there was not enough parking for guests in the parking tract. She wanted to know if the parking tract would be permeable surface. She related that SOLV had been restoring Carter Creek habitat, She worried that work would be affected by the proposed sewer line. She appreciated that the plan used vegetation to buffer headlights from the parking tract. She asked that heating and air conditioning units not be placed too close to the neighbors' windows. Ms. Hastay advised those mechanical units had to meet the 5- foot accessory structure setback. Mr. Sandblast said the applicants planned to reside in the development and be good neighbors. They would work it out with the neighbors how to configure a fence so it did not impact trees on the joint property line and where they located AC units along the boundary. They would let their engineer know about the SOLV effort. They planned to have a parking tract because people would not be able to park on Bonita Road. They understood the neighborhood did not favor sidewalks, but that was something the applicant had no control over and the City and county had to work it out. The applicants and the Engineering staff were looking at bioswales. They had not yet determined what type of surface the parking tract would have and they assumed the drive itself would be impermeable surface so it would be durable. Sandblast pointed out Exhibit E-2 showed where there was an old, falling down, fence close to the joint property line. Ms. Hastay explained the application had been submitted prior to the adoption of the new Sensitive Lands ordinance so it was subject to the previous version (which had different fencing standards) and it met that version. The flag lot code meant Lots 2, 6 and 7 were subject to special fencing standards; a wildlife friendly fence was required to protect the resource area; and the applicants could get a wavier from the common fence requirement along their joint boundary from adjacent property owners. Deliberations City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 7 Minutes of December 21,2009 No one requested the DRC keep the record open. The applicants waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Chair Heredia closed the public hearing. Mr. Needham indicated that he liked the project and appreciated that the applicants proposed a single-family, detached home development. He hoped the City and county could eventually agree on what to do with Bonita Road. He said a single access to the development made sense. Mr. Rossi indicated it was nice to see a development that had been designed to fit its site and conserve trees. He had not favored allowing an undersized Lot 8, but the fact the applicants had reduced the parking tract to six spaces so they could give more room to Lot 8 made a big difference in how he viewed the application. Mr. Scott agreed and observed that the applicants offered an excellent layout that made good use of space on such a small site. Chair Heredia saw this case as a good example of how "working backwards" [starting with protecting the resources] had resulted in a preferable design. He said the conditions of approval seemed to address all issues. Mr. Needham moved to acprove LU 08-0057. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Chair Heredia announced the final vote would be conducted on January 4, 2010. VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS (None) VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Heredia adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 6,7-eutitteib. Atirl-tiVO Janice Reynolds Administrative Support Lldre\minutes\December 21,2009.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 7 Minutes of December 21,2009