Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2008-10-20L CALL TO ORDER City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes October 20, 2008 Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of October 20, 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: Chair Tierney, Gregg B. Creighton, Alby Heredia, Bob Needham, Frank Rossi and Krytsyna Stadnik. Don Richards was excused. Staff present: Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support. III. MINUTES (None) IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER (None) V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 08-0026, a request by Piedmont Progetto for approval of the following: 1. Development Review Permit to construct two zero lot line dwellings in the R-2 zone; 2. Class 1 variances on both lots to reduce the external side yard setbacks from 7 feet to 5.75 feet; 3. Class 1 variances on both lots to reduce the rear yard setbacks from 10 feet to 8 feet; 4. Removal of 4 (four) trees. Location of property: 554 and 556 5th Street (Tax Lot 3100 of Tax Map 2 1 E 03DC). The hearing had been continued from October 6, 2008. Chair Tierney opened the hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contact (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. New Commissioners Rossi and Needham reported they had been in the audience during the previous hearing. Mr. Rossi, Ms. Stadnik, Mr. Creighton and Chair Tierney each reported they had visited the site. The following Commissioners declared their business or occupation: Creighton (architect); Heredia (real estate broker); Needham (retired lawyer); Stadnik (civil engineer) and Chair Tierney (employed by PGE). No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 7 Minutes of October 20, 2008 Staff Report Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner, was staff coordinator. She pointed out the city had received two letters from opponents since the previous hearing (Exhibits G-200 and G- 201). Applicant Kevin Nyhoff, Nyhoff Design LLC, 3825 SW 34th Ave, Portland, Oregon 97212, and Shari Newman, 688 Iron Mountain Blvd., presented illustrations and a model to help the Commissioners compare the proposed project with the way it would look without the Class 1 variances they wanted and with an existing duplex across the street. They stressed that the existing duplex could not be built under the current code and that the proposed design was further back from the street; more articulated; of better scale and mass, and fit the neighborhood. They pointed out they were asking for a side yard variance for only a portion of its length. They said they would use environmentally friendly materials, including pervious pavers. They would install a rain garden to address all runoff on site. They noted the proposed plan had a smaller garage than the adjacent property. They clarified that they objected to the requirement to extend alleyway pavement beyond the site. During the questioning period, Mr. Needham asked if the applicant knew what the alleyway paving they objected to would cost. The applicant's representatives said they did not yet know, but they held it was an undue burden on the applicant to bear the cost of that much paving. Chair Tierney and Mr. Needham each indicated they wanted to know what improvement or enhancement the applicant would "give back" in return for the requested variances. They suggested that could be the additional paving. However, Mr. Boone advised that the criteria for a Class 1 variance decision were that the change was small enough to be within the code -specified range, and that it would not materially injure the neighbors. The representatives said granting the variances would allow an improved design and setting the house further back from the street. Mr. Needham asked if they could reduce the size of the structure while keeping the proposed design, or change the design so the structure fit within the required setbacks. The representatives explained the proposed dimensions allowed it to have functionally sized rooms - particularly the master suite in front and the dining room. Mr. Needham worried that every developer would consider the code setbacks the "starting point" of the design process and not what the resulting envelope had to conform to. Mr. Nyhoff explained that the applicant could design a structure that met the setbacks without a variance, but it would look very "flat." Ms. Newman stressed the applicant had worked with staff for over a year to fashion the design. When asked, Ms. Hastay said she believed the duplex across the street had been constructed several years ago and before the current design requirements were adopted, but it likely met the zone's required setbacks, height and lot coverage. Mr. Creighton said the proposed design was a good example of how a better design could result when the applicant and staff worked together. He asked if the tree in the southeast corner of the front yard could be saved. Mr. Nyhoff explained there would be excavation in front and the applicant would replace that older tree with more trees when they re - City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 7 Minutes of October 20, 2008 landscaped the front yard. Ms. Stadnik wanted to know if the original plan the applicant took to the staff conformed to code required setbacks. Mr. Nyhoff replied that the original proposal was for a modern, sustainable, Northwest design that staff rejected, and they had discussed six other designs since then. Staff explained the design district allowed a choice of either Oregon Rustic, Arts and Crafts, or English Tudor style, or a style that was compatible with adjacent structures, and they had found the previous designs did not meet that standard. Ms. Newman explained she understood Class 1 variances were allowed within code -specified ranges. She recalled she had been granted sixteen variances in a project she had developed at 2nd Street/C Avenue. She stressed that the requested variances enhanced the project. When asked, staff clarified that they did not encourage the use of variances when they worked with applicants. When asked about the impact on neighboring property, Mr. Nyhoff said their solar access would not be impacted; they were protected by a six-foot privacy fence and a heavily landscaped courtyard; and they were one to two feet higher elevation than the site. He was not sure how the proposed development would impact two of their windows. He said there would be a vegetated buffer along the north and south sides of the site. He said the applicant proposed pervious pavers and a rain garden to address runoff on site. Mr. Needham asked again if the applicant could follow the rules and reduce the proposed design so it complied with all setbacks. The applicant's representatives explained that would make a huge difference to prospective buyers because creating adequate interior space within the proposed structure and making room for features, such as a laundry area, had been a challenge and they did not want to end up with a "box." They noted every house in that neighborhood was different. They stressed they were asking for the variances in order to develop a structure of better design and character. Staff explained why the staff report and the applicant's narrative described the front yard setback differently. Because only two feet of eave was allowed to be excluded in the lot coverage calculation, staff found the front yard setback was 16 feet, while the applicant had excluded the entire three-foot deep eave and reported that setback as 15 feet. Opponents Brent Hunsberger, 566 5th St., who owned the house to the north, clarified the issue for him was not the design. He held the development should be within zone setbacks so it was appropriate bulk. He acknowledged his home might not conform to them, but he explained it had been built in 1920, before current zoning. Beth Sokol said she lived across the street. She said she was glad the existing duplex next door to her house could not be built today because it towered over her residence and impacted her privacy. She suggested the area of the proposed pavers should instead be "green" space so the development looked more like a "home." She said the proposed development could be a house or a duplex, but it should be built according to the code. Chair Tierney observed that staff believed the duplex next door to her house could be built today under the R-2 zone, so "scale" was not the issue with the proposed development. He also noted that "affordability" was not a criterion the DRC could City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 7 Minutes of October 20, 2008 consider. Mr. Boone announced that the Planning Commission was about to consider Infill Task Force recommended amendments to the code on October 27, 2008. There was no other testimony. Rebuttal Mr. Nyhoff held the design looked more like a house than an office building, it was appropriate scale; and it fit the R-2 zoned neighborhood. He said neighbors might want to believe they were in the R-6 zone, but the reality was that the development pattern shown in the aerial photographs in the record was more diversity and density. Ms. Newman said the comment that the proposed development looked too much like a storefront referred to the modern, Northwest style, flat, "green" roof design the applicant had originally presented at the first neighborhood meeting. But the design had been completely changed since then. Deliberations Chair Tierney closed public hearing. The applicant waived their right to more time to submit a final written argument. Chair Tierney suggested the Commissioners consider the design as a whole, and then apply the variance criteria. Ms. Stadnik said the fact that the applicant had set the structure five feet further back from the street than they were required to; made it several feet lower than they could have, and proposed reduced FAR, reduced its scale and improved people's impression of the development, even with the requested variances. Mr. Heredia said the applicant had demonstrated the need for an articulated design, instead of a "box," and that the variances were minor and would have virtually no impact on neighbors. He agreed with Ms. Stadnik that the larger front setback and less than maximum allowed height were mitigating factors. He commended the architect for providing a massing model. Mr. Creighton indicated the requested variances were "minor sacrifices" that helped improve the overall design. He noted the applicant could have proposed a design similar to the house across the street, which featured a flat, unarticulated fagade. Mr. Heredia said the fact that the applicant had to design a project in a higher density {R-2} zone and in the DRDD had to be considered in making a determination about the requested small variances. Mr. Rossi agreed and said the applicant's presentation at the current hearing showed him the variances did not make enough of a difference to negatively impact other property. Mr. Needham explained that he typically rejected variance requests and the typical argument by an applicant that they could have proposed an ugly building under the code and needed a variance to make it look better. However, he said he could support the currently requested variances even if some people might feel the proposed structure was out of place, because the site was in the R-2 zone; in a transitional area of town; and it was what the code indicated was appropriate development in a neighborhood the city expected to change over time to a denser and more affordable area. He said he liked the design, which was a little "non-traditional" for a residence, but was not a "cookie -cutter" City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 7 Minutes of October 20, 2008 design. He agreed the fact that the applicant had pulled the structure back from the street reduced the appearance of mass. He said the lots were small, but the proposed structure's size was appropriate and less than maximum allowable height. He acknowledged that he found it easier to agree to the rear setback variance than the side setback variances. Chair Tierney said granting the variances would not be injurious to property within 300 feet of the site and it was a good design. He commended the applicant for demonstrating that at the hearing. Chair Tierney moved to recommend that the City Engineer only require the alley to be paved the width of the site, and not beyond. During the ensuing discussion, Ms. Hastay clarified that the middle portion of the alley segment was gravel, but the fifty feet north of it was paved and a small portion of the alley south it was paved. She said the City Engineer had determined the applicant should be required to pave from the site south because that would be the access site residents typically used. She advised that as other properties along the segment the applicant paved were redeveloped the applicant could recoup some of the cost of paving. Mr. Boone advised the paving issue was not a "design" issue." He said the City Engineer had the authority to determine what had to be paved, but the DRC had the authority to determine whether the condition of approval requiring offsite alley improvement was an appropriate exaction relative to the intensity of the proposed development. Ms. Hastay observed the alley would serve as the primary auto access to the two residences on the site. Mr. Creighton seconded the motion and it failed 5:1. Chair Tierney voted for. Ms. Stadnik moved to qpprove LU 08-0026. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would be held on November 3, 2008. He announced a five-minute recess and thereafter reconvened the meeting. LU 07-0084, a request by Tyrone and Jackie Cruze Family Trust, LLP for approval of the following: An 8 -lot, single-family residential Planned Development for four pairs of zero -lot line dwellings; and removal of 19 trees. Location of property: 5248 Lakeview Boulevard (Tax Lots 2600 and 2700 of Tax Map 2 1 E 13AC). The hearing had been continued from October 6, 2008. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contact (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 and Chair Tierney each reported they had visited the site. Mr. Needham reported he had been in the audience at the last hearing. Each of the Commissioners present declared their business or occupation as follows: Creighton (architect); Heredia (real estate broker); Needham (retired lawyer); Rossi (architectural drafter and designer); Stadnik (civil engineer) and Chair Tierney (employed by PGE). No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 7 Minutes of October 20, 2008 Staff Report Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner, was staff coordinator. She reported the City Engineer had agreed to the applicant's street design. Deliberations The applicant had no comment, so Chair Tierney closed the public hearing. The applicant waived their right to additional time to submit a final written argument. Chair Tierney observed the PD protected the tree grove and the street issue was to be worked out between the applicant and staff, so he could approve the application. Mr. Heredia said he agreed with an opponent's request to define the boundary between Lots 7 and 8 and the natural area with fiberglass lot markers. Staff reported that the City Engineer had found the proposed turnaround did not meet Fire Code standards because part of it was not deep enough, so he recommended either installing sprinklers in the dwellings on Lots 5 and 6, or modifying the street design in a manner that would extend the turnaround. The applicant clarified they preferred to use the alternate street design shown in Exhibit E-10. Ms. Hastay reported the applicant had chosen the option to eliminate the sidewalk and not move the curb line, and the City Engineer would accept that. The applicant explained that pedestrians coming from the pathway on Lakeview Boulevard could enter the site via a soft path to the hammerhead and then walk in the street to access their residence. They said they did not want to add any more hard surface to the "tight" site, and if there were a sidewalk, drivers would be tempted to park on it. When asked, Ms. Hastay confirmed that the property to the south was already fully developed and that one other off street parking space besides the garage space was required for each unit. She noted that eliminating the sidewalk created a larger front yard. She recalled there was a meandering sidewalk, but no curb, on the north side of Lakeview Boulevard. Chair Tierney said it would be nice to have a sidewalk, but he could agree to not have one because it was a very small development; he recalled there were many streets in the community that did not feature a sidewalk; and the applicant had configured the PD to preserve the tree grove. Ms. Stadnik observed that a sidewalk could keep kids off the street and she and Mr. Needham indicated they did not favor a situation where parked cars overhung the sidewalk. Mr. Heredia recalled the street was four feet wider than it had to be. The applicant explained if there were a sidewalk it would be along a very low curb and that would invite drivers to park on it. Ms. Stadnik said in that case drivers might view it as a parking strip. Ms. Hastay advised the DRC had the authority to increase setbacks another five feet in order to accommodate the sidewalk and a longer driveway. Chair Tierney asked if the DRC had the authority to decide what to do with the street. Mr. Boone advised the City Engineer had the authority to waive the sidewalk requirement, and he had done that. However, the DRC could decide to require it under the PD standard that allowed a design that offered the same or better sense of privacy, appropriate scale or open space. He noted for the record that there was no one in the audience to invite to testify to matters the applicant was discussing with the Commissioners during deliberations. The applicant explained their experience with another similar development with a 20 —foot wide street City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 7 Minutes of October 20, 2008 was they heard a lot of complaints that the street was too narrow. They said the extra four feet of width they currently proposed made residences easier to access and made the development more marketable. Mr. Needham stressed that safety of children was most important. The applicant hoped small children would find the open space a nice place to play and access the Lakeview pathway. They said they planned to remove ivy from the tree grove. Mr. Needham suggested making removal of nonnative species a condition of approval. The applicant said eliminating the sidewalk would provide a bigger yard and room for an additional five feet of landscaped buffering with street trees between the fronts of the units and the public street. Chair Tierney observed a consensus to agree to elimination of the sidewalk. Mr. Heredia moved to approve LU 07-0084 as modified during deliberations to require lot markers on Lots 7 and 8; to require removal of nonnative species from the tree grove; and to require the roadway design in Exhibit E-10. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 4:2. Ms. Stadnik and Mr. Rossi voted against. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would be conducted on November 3, 2008. VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS David Howe, Matrix Consulting, explained that the City Manager had asked the consultants to evaluate the efficiency, management and organization of the Community Development Department and recommend alternatives. He invited each of the Commissioners to meet with him. VII, ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:50 p. m. Respectfully submitted, �i �'Janice Reynolds Administrative Support III L\dre\minutes\October 20, 2008.doe City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 20, 2008 Page 7 of 7