Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2008-06-30City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes June 30, 2008 Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission (DRC) meeting of June 30, 2008, 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 were Chair Tierney, Alby Heredia, Krytsyna Stadnik and Don Richards. Commissioner Nan Binkley was not present. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Asst. Planning Director; Debra Andreades, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support. III. MINUTES (None) IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER (None) V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 08-0005, a request by JRT Construction, LLC, for approval of the following: Residential Infill Design (RID) Review for the following exceptions to the R-7.5 zone requirements in order to construct three sets of zero -lot line dwellings: • Exceptions to the 25 -foot front yard setback as follows: - A 12 -foot exception for Unit 2 - A 10 -foot exception for Unit 1 - 5 -foot exceptions for Units 3 and 5 • A 5 -foot exception to the 10 -foot side yard setback for the exterior wall of all six units • A 15% exception to the maximum 25% lot coverage standard for all units resulting in a lot coverage of 40% • An exception to the limitations of LOC 50.08.050(3) in order for proposed garages to be constructed with common party walls. This exception will allow three pairs of attached garages. • Removal of 32 trees to accommodate the development Location of Property: 335, 343 and 355 6th Street (Tax Lots 12601-12604 and 12300 of Tax Map 2 1 E 03 DC). Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 9 Minutes of June 30, 2008 business relationships with the project or the applicant. Each of the Commissioners present reported a site visit and declared his or her business or occupation as follows: Heredia (real estate broker); Richards (arborist and landscape architect); Stadnik (civil engineer) and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business). No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Staff Report Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated June 6, 2008). She reported the applicant proposed to build three sets of zero -lot line dwellings on six existing 3,000 sq. ft. lots in the R-7.5 zone. She advised the Code allowed the applicant to use the Residential Infill Design (RID) process and the DRC should determine if RID criteria had been met. She said the RID process could allow a design that did not meet the Code if it presented an equal or better result than could be built under the Code, and if its size, relationship to the street, and relationship to the neighbors created a more positive and compatible relationship with the neighborhood. She reported that two consulting architects had worked with staff to determine if the applicant's chosen design solution met RID criteria. She advised the RID process required notification of neighbors within 100 feet of the site. She reported that the applicant had met with the Evergreen Neighborhood Association, even though that was not required. She pointed out new information that been submitted that day included Exhibits G-612, G-613 and Exhibit F-6 (a letter from the applicant's arborist). Ms. Andreades referred to the applicant's drawing in Exhibit E-21 showing the "basic box" that the Code would allow on the 25' x 120' lots with no exceptions necessary. She pointed out that if one side yard were zero, the opposite side had to be 10 feet as long as the height of that section of building was less than 18 feet. She described the surrounding zoning and uses. She showed photographs of surrounding buildings to convey neighborhood character. She explained the Evergreen Design Overlay had become effective after the application was submitted, so it did not apply, but the RID advisors had been guided by and considered Evergreen Design Objectives from 2005. She noted the Objectives assumed there would be redevelopment of small cottages on larger lots - not development on very small lots. She reported the proposed FAR and height complied with R-7.5 zone requirements, but the applicant was requesting exceptions to lot coverage on all lots; exceptions to all side setbacks; and to the front setback on three lots. She clarified that the front yard setback on two lots (Lots 4 and 6) exceeded the zone requirement. She discussed the RID criteria and pointed out the staff report listed features staff found helped diminish the perceived scale and break up the perceived mass. She pointed out sections where the height was lower than the zone maximum so the structure in that location was allowed to be closer to the property line. Ms. Andreades discussed the relationship to the street and pointed out the staff report listed features staff found enhanced the view from the street, such as staggered front setbacks; well separated, recessed entries; and open porches. She observed that the applicant had measured the front setback from the porch and she reported the neighborhood association wanted the front setback line to be 21.5' from the front elevation, not counting the porch. She discussed the relationship to the neighbors, and City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 9 Minutes of June 30, 2008 reported that staff found features that enhanced the perspective from and privacy of adjacent properties. She said they found the proposed project would be compatible with the existing alley environment, where many other garages and structures were right on the property line along the alley. She said staff recommended approval subject to their recommended conditions of approval, including conditions that would preserve two trees by moving Units 1 and 2 forward. During the questioning period, Ms. Andreades clarified staff had not calculated the square footage or lot coverage of the exhibit showing what could be built in the zone without exceptions. She confirmed the RID consultant architects had advised that the buildings should be distinguished from each other through application of different materials and paint colors, so each building featured different windows, brickwork and siding and the amount of porch overhang varied. She acknowledged that some buildings across the street were much smaller, but she pointed out another nearby house was a much larger, two-story house, and there was commercial use nearby. She advised that "compatibility" considerations did not mandate that the proposed units had to be an exact match to existing, one-story structures. She reported that the overall project was lower than the allowable zone height of 28', but the applicant was asking for greater lot coverage. She said staff found the RID criteria were met because the end product was not incompatible with structures in the vicinity. She confirmed that if a section of structure were less than 18 feet high that section could be as close as five feet from the property line. She pointed out where an exception was requested where a dormer that should be setback ten feet was proposed to be set back seven feet. She advised that a notch in the design helped it comply with a regulation intended to prevent large, blank sidewall planes. Mr. Richards cautioned that some proposed columnar tree species would accentuate the already vertical -looking design, and many of the replacement tree species shown in the landscape plan were not appropriate for mitigation trees due to their size at maturity. He noted that 32 trees were proposed to be removed but the landscape plan showed 33 trees would be replaced. Ms. Andreades advised that if the applicant could not fit all mitigation trees on the site they could pay into the Tree Fund instead. Applicant Jennifer Paine and Teresa Goddard, JRT Construction, LLC, said the project would enhance the neighborhood. Dan Goodrich, Icon Architecture/Planning, Inc., Ste. 211, 17040 Pilkington Rd., explained the applicant had considered many designs and then proposed a smaller size project than the Code would have allowed - with a "one and one- half story look" - to be consistent with the RID standards. He stressed the lots were very small and narrow. He said the Code allowed a five-foot side yard where the structure was less than 18 feet tall. He said the applicants had pushed the building back from the street to reduce its perceived scale and lowered the roofline adjacent to lower neighboring structures. He said they had used a steep pitch in order to make the structure seem 1.5 stories tall. He said they did not want to convey a "vertical" feeling, and they and would try to do things to give the project a more "horizontal" feel. He noted the project served as a transition between types of uses and was generally about four feet lower than the 28 - foot zone height limit because the applicant had lowered the main floor to below the grade. He said they did not plan to make the buildings all exactly the same and intended City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 9 Minutes of June 30, 2008 to differentiate them using different colors and varied shapes of architectural features. He confirmed that he had read that opponents did not want the project to be more than 22 feet high, and that the applicant might consider making it lower, but he stressed that the proposed plan was a reasonable compromise and the end result of a lot of effort and consideration of many designs. He said to further increase side yards would make the homes too narrow. He said the design saved trees. He held the applicant had used the proper process. He said the applicants could agree to work with staff to modify and vary the designs of the front elevations, but they did not want to make them look like false fronts. He submitted examples of how the front elevations might be varied (Exhibit E- 23). During the questioning period, Mr. Goodrich clarified that project height ranged between 23' 8" and 22' 11 ". He said the designers had balanced height with the storm drainage requirement. Ms. Andreades clarified that the zone allowed 28' height, and at that height, allowable lot coverage was 25%. However, if the project were at or lower than 22' high, allowable lot coverage increased to 35%. Mr. Goodrich explained that the structures would have to be very tall and skinny if an exception to lot coverage were not allowed. He indicated the roof pitch had been arrived at over time and the second story had evolved into a sort of "dormer" that made the structure seem to be only 1.5 stories tall. He held that a zero lot line project was an appropriate transition from nearby commercial structures. No other proponents testified. Opponents Joy Strull, Co-chair of the Evergreen Neighborhood Association, testified as an individual. She said neighborhood residents did not want to,see the project approved as proposed. They wanted the height limited to 22 feet; a minimum side setback of 7 feet, and minimum 21.5 front setbacks. She stressed they were willing to find a compromise that fit the neighborhood, and were not asking for a major redesign. She regretted that the RID process did not consider the neighborhood plan. During the questioning period, Chair Tierney asked neighborhood residents if they wanted a 21.5 front setback on all the lots, and if they had considered the fact that the front elevations had been staggered to protect trees in back. Paden Prichard clarified they were not asking for that size front setback on all the lots. When asked, Ms. Stull acknowledged that she was aware that the Evergreen Design Overlay had been adopted after the application had been submitted. Mr. Boone advised that RID standards required consideration of neighborhood design objectives or guidelines, compatibility with the surrounding vicinity, and the applicable criteria that the design had to be equal or better than what could be built under the Code. Paden Prichard, 204 6t" St., representing the Evergreen Neighborhood Association, said the neighborhood was "eclectic," and conveyed an overall feeling of one and one- half story homes. He said residents would prefer to see single-family houses on 50' wide lots, but he acknowledged the zone permitted zero lot line homes. He explained the proposed buildings were a bit too large; they did not fit the character of the neighborhood; and they set a bad precedent for infill development. He said the project's height should City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 9 Minutes of June 30, 2008 be limited to 22 feet. He said the neighborhood was willing to compromise and permit 7' side yard setbacks - instead of the required 10' setbacks or the proposed 5' setbacks - where building sections were less than 18' high from finished grade. He said they could agree to allow 5' garage setbacks and open porches could be set back 5.5' as long as they were "really open." He advised that the "same feeling of space" could be achieved within each unit, even with 7' side yard setbacks and 18' unit widths. Mr. Pritchard then discussed the Association's recommendations. He said building height could be reduced to overall height of 22' from the existing and/or finished grade by reducing the width of each unit to 18'; reducing the roof pitch to 10:12; lowering the main floor ceiling a couple of inches; and using a curtain wall foundation system, so the main floor would be 9 inches above finished grade. He said the first floor should be set back 7' on the side and second floor dormers should be reduced so they set back 8' 6" on the side. He said that way the dormers would have less visual impact. He advised that reducing the width of the building also resulted in a slight reduction of lot coverage, so it would be closer to the 35% coverage permitted when a building was at or lower than 22'. He said the project would be a better transition from the commercial zone if units were smaller and there was more room for landscaped side yards. He noted that the buildings were almost 24' tall, which was about 3' taller than the adjacent bank building. He said after most of the mature trees along the property line were removed, the proposed 5' side yard setbacks did not offer enough room to screen the bank parking lot. He asked for 5' side yard setbacks for the garages, and a minimum 5' 6" side setback for open entry porches (so porches could be a little wider and people would use thein). He asked for elevation stakes from the beginning of construction that would clearly indicate finished floor heights and overall roof height. He said upon completion, a licensed surveyor should verify those dimensions. He suggested that major structural elements, such as hip and gable roofs, could be used to differentiate the buildings and diversity the street facades. He said that would reflect the character of the Evergreen Neighborhood. He said construction documents should be accurate and clearly show dimensions that could be verified by staff. Mr. Pritchard contended the applicant had misstated the overall height by several inches because the dimensions actually added up to 23' 3". He advised that in actual practice, using conventional materials and building practices, the structure would be 23' 8", and a couple of inches higher than the Code permitted for the requested lot coverage. He said his reading of the section drawings indicated the front elevation might be even taller than 23' 8". He advised second floor windows were incorrectly shown on the drawings and the drawings offered a false sense of scale. He pointed out the applicant asked for "6 -inch leeway, due to the sensitive nature of this project," but he advised that buildings constructed according to accurate plans did not need such leeway. He pointed out the neighbors' house to the south had a larger side setback because that was where their front door and outdoor living area was located. He stressed the proposed project would be five feet away and loom over their property line, and the adjacent house was one story high and covered 32% of a 55' wide lot. He agreed with staff that the applicant had incorrectly analyzed the front setback plane. He said the neighborhood questioned whether the applicant's sketch of what could be built in strict compliance with zone requirements was correct. He said they would have preferred to hear the staff report that the proposed City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 9 Minutes of June 30, 2008 design was not the best that could be offered to meet neighborhood goals. He opined that the RID process should be a more public process that allowed people to comment all the way through and it should not have taken place "behind closed doors." The Association representative said the Association would be willing to recommend approval if the applicant were willing to agree to incorporate their recommendations into the conditions of approval. He had prepared his own drawings to demonstrate inaccuracies in plans; to demonstrate how the plans overlaid the existing neighborhood; to profile differences between a 22' high and a 23' 8" high building; and to demonstrate how a 10:12 pitch roof and slightly reduced first floor ceilings would work and make the building seem smaller (Exhibit G-614). During the questioning period, Mr. Pritchard clarified that the Association wanted the northernmost units to be set back 21.5' in front, and they could agree to allow the porches to extend 5' into that setback because in the R-7.5 zone the setback line was 25' and measured from the front fagade, not from the porch. He acknowledged the arborist had some good suggestions regarding balancing trees. He said the Association had no problem with the fact the buildings had been stepped back on the south end because those buildings had a more generous front setback. He indicated that the two buildings on the north end definitely violated the Code front setback plane requirement because the drawings showed it starting at 20', not at 25'. Ms. Andreades then clarified how the front setback plane was measured. If the Code said the front setback was to be 25, then the front setback plane was measured from the 25' setback line. However, in a RID or Variance process, the front setback plane was measured from whatever front setback was approved in that process. If, for example, the front setback were approved at 20', then the front setback plane was to start at 20', not 25'. Mr. Boone added that porches were allowed to project 5' into the front yard setback. Mr. Pritchard observed that the applicant's diagrams showed the front setback plane starting at the porch. Mr. Pritchard stressed the neighbors did not want the project to seem to loom over them as they walked past, and they believed that putting the building on Lot 120' back from the sidewalk and the building on Lot 2 18' back from the sidewalk would create that feeling. He suggested the way to mitigate that would be to limit the project to 22' height, adjust the roof pitch a bit, and redesign the front facades to mask the height of the building. Dianna Boom, 557 Evergreen Rd. had submitted written comments. She pointed out the record contained a memorandum from one of the RID consulting architects in which he questioned the proposed height and setbacks and warned approval could set a precedent that would be applied to remaining infill lots in Evergreen. The memorandum also advised that it was important to have wider side yards to preserve neighborhood character. She contended the RID process was a way to get around the zoning regulations. She said new homes should be consistent and compatible with the character of surrounding existing development, and two-story houses were not the "norm" on the block, or in the neighborhood. She stressed the site was in a single-family residential zone. She hoped there was still time to reach a compromise and incorporate the changes Mr. Pritchard had suggested. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 9 Minutes of June 30, 2008 Carol Medich, 669 Ellis St., said she supported previous opponents' testimony. She urged the DRC not to approve it without the changes suggested by the Association. Norma Pritchard, 204 6th St., supported the Evergreen Neighborhood Association request and wanted the applicant to scale down the project because it would influence future infill development applications. Darryl Boom, 557 Evergreen Rd., stated that he lived fifty feet south of the site and objected to exceptions for lot coverage and setbacks. He said it was a dangerous precedent that would affect him even more when the land between the site and his lot was redeveloped. He noted the neighborhood featured over 30 lots that might be redeveloped in the same manner. He calculated that the requested exception to lot coverage would bring it to 40%, which was a 60% increase in lot coverage. He stressed that a 5' side yard setback was too small. He recalled there was one existing zero lot line development south across the alley that had 23' and 9' setbacks and did not look too bad. He did not want to see a neighborhood of 5' setbacks and he worried about the affect on privacy and property values. He said he would have preferred to see greater changes than the Association recommended, but he could support their request, because it would make a difference in the end result. However, he wanted assurance that any future similar projects would be required to have 10' side yard setbacks and could not use the RID process, which only considered structures within 100' of the site, and not the entire neighborhood. Kim Hawkins said she resided across 6th Street. She predicted that other developers would follow the applicant's example. She reasoned that the City should not have agreed not to charge the applicants the RID fee because even if staff had given them incorrect advice, the applicant's consultants should have understood the applicable regulations. She said staff incorrectly reported that the house at 350 6th Street was two stories. She said Clackamas County Assessor's records indicated it was one story and featured a finished, 420 sq, ft. attic. She said County records showed that all the homes on 6th Street between A Avenue and Evergreen were one-story structures. She said all six proposed lots should not be considered transitional hots from commercial to residential uses. She acknowledged that use of the RID process was not at issue at the DRC hearing, but she wanted her objection to it on the record because it enabled a developer to bypass neighborhood plans and a RID consulting architect might have a conflict of interest. She questioned why residents should have to spend their time analyzing the Code every time a RID application was filed. She asked the Commissioners to consider the changes suggested by the Association. During the questioning period, she clarified that it seemed reasonable to deem the first two units a "transition area," and that she agreed with all the suggestions presented by the Association representative. Chair Tierney pointed out payment of fees was not a factor in the DRC decision Jim Bolland, 804 51h St., a member of the Infill Development Task Force, recalled the Task Force had recommended the City adopt the Residential Infill Development (RID) process. However, he stressed they never intended that process to be used to allow larger, or denser, development than the underlying zone allowed. The creators intended it to offer the owner of a constrained lot or an owner wanting to remodel a pre-existing, City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 9 Minutes of June 30, 2008 nonconforming house an alternative to the Class 1 Variance process. He said he could not understand why the City decided that the "equal or better" RID concept applied to the proposed development of six homes when the applicant could build three houses and meet R-7.5 zone regulations without significant variances or exceptions. He stressed the site was not a "transitional zone" because the R-7.5 zone was not a "transitional zone," as R-0 and R-3 were. He stressed that the site should not be allowed to become denser than the R-7.5 allowed. He noted a June 13, 2008, letter from the Community Development Department Director to the applicants explained they needed to gain the support of the neighborhood to be successful. He said the director had assured the Infill Task Force that if neighbors opposed a project and the parties could not resolve the issues, the project would not move forward in the RID process. Mr. Bolland held that neighbors' testimony showed the applicant had not met the burden of proof of compatibility. He said the DRC had to deny the application. There was no testimony from persons neither for nor against. Rebuttal Chair Tierney announced a ten-minute recess and then reconvened the hearing at until 9:05 p.m. Mr. Goodrich then announced that the applicant was willing to compromise by agreeing to a 7' first floor side setback and an 8.5' second floor side setback for Units 3-6. He stressed they had already considered using hip roofs and many other features until the RID group process had led to the proposed design. He said they would apply a variety of textures and colors to the buildings. He explained they could not push Units 1 and 2 further back on the lots without impacting a very big tree. He held that Unit 1 was a "transitional" lot because it was adjacent to the bank. He explained the garages had to share common walls or they would be too skinny. He explained that he could redesign the project to an overall height of 22' if he could measure from the finished grade. He explained that all his submitted height measurements — whether the area had been cut or filled - had been measured from the existing, natural grade, and some of the homes (Units 3 and 4 and 5 and 6) were below that grade. Mr. Pishvaie advised that where the grade was cut, height had to be measured from the finished grade. He observed that on Exhibit E-10, side and garage elevations indicated a location where height had been measured from a point below the existing grade. Mr. Goodrich confirmed that all elevations showed height as measured from the existing, natural grade. He offered to provide adjusted elevations. Chair Tierney advised the applicant they could continue the hearing and waive the 120 - day rule period to gain more time to revise their plans. He recommended the applicant try again to resolve issues with the neighborhood association and gain their support. He observed opponents had offered constructive suggestions and were asking for "tweaks" in the design. He said he wanted to see a revised plan that clearly met RID standards. He indicated he agreed with Mr. Bolland's testimony. He apologized for the lack of a quorum at the previous DRC meeting. Mr. Heredia encouraged the applicant to make the revised plan as compatible as possible. Mr. Richards asked the applicant to correct the number of trees on the landscape plan and to consider proposing a more appropriate size mitigation tree species. Ms. Stadnik suggested the applicant compare their sketches of possible facades with neighborhood structures. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 9 Minutes of June 30, 2008 When Mr. Goodrich asked if the revised design had to be re-examined by the RID architects Mr. Pishvaie said he did not think that would be necessary because the Commissioners had indicated they believed the neighborhood suggestions were reasonable. Mr. Goodrich then asked the DRC to continue the hearing to July 21, 2008. Mr. Pishvaie advised the applicant to submit site plans and elevations that showed the new side yard setbacks, correct height measurements, and a variety of treatments of facades. Ms. Stadnik moved to continue LU 08-0005 to July 21, 2008. Staff had asked that the applicant submit their revised proposal by July 11, 2008, so they could prepare and mail out a supplemental staff report. Mr. Heredia seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. The DRC planned to elect officers at the next meeting. CAiAVA0011At 013JD1►`Y Y There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, L\dre\minutes\June 30, 2008.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 9 Minutes of June 30, 2008