Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2007-03-05I. CALL TO ORDER City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes March 5, 2007 Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of March 5, 2007, 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 besides Chair Tierney were Vice -Chair Sheila Ostly and Commissioners Nan Binkley, Bob Needham and Krytsyna Stadnik. Commissioner Halliday Meisburger was not present. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Debra Andreades, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support. III. MINUTES Ms. Ostly moved to approve the Minutes of January 3, 2007. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it was passed 4;0. Chair Tierney abstained. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER (None) W. PUBLIC HEARING LU 06-0031, a request by Homes with Style, Inc., for modification of a previously approved Development Permit (LU 05-0001) to reduce the 72 -foot northerly side yard setback on parcel 3 (the rear flag lot) to 48 feet. The site is located at 645 Country Club Road, Tax Lot 1900 of Tax Map 21E 04DA. 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 business relationships with the project or the applicant. Each of the Commissioners present declared their business or occupation as follows: Ostly (real estate appraiser); Binkley (architect); Stadnik (civil engineer); Needham (lawyer); and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business). No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She reported the appellant and the applicant had reached agreement regarding landscape screening and that the setback was to be 48 feet, rather then 38 feet. She advised that the City did not enforce private agreements, and that the Code allowed abutting property owners to waive the landscape -screening requirement of the Flag. Lot Ordinance. Chair Tierney recalled the Commissioner had been inclined to allow a 38 -foot setback, rather than a 72 -foot setback. During the questioning period, Ms. Andreades advised that until the Findings were officially adopted, the minimum setback remained at 72 feet. She also advised that that the applicant had submitted an exhibit that showed that the rear house plane technically met the Commission request that that wall be broken up to reduce the large side -yard plane. There was no testimony from the applicant or any other party, and the applicant (Mr. Hughes) waived his right to additional time to submit a final written argument. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 5 Minutes of March 5, 2007 Deliberations Ms. Ostly mored to a rove LU 06-0031, Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it was passed 5:0. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would be held on March 19, 2007. LU 06-0071, a request by Terrill &. Janet Collier for approval of a 15 -lot single-family residential planned development and removal of eight trees to construct public improvements. The property is located at 17999 Stafford Road, Tax Lot 700 of Tax Map 21E 16CA. (Continued from February 21, 2007) 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 business relationships with the project or the applicant. Ms. Stadnik and Chair Tierney reported they had visited the site. Ms. Ostly reported she had driven past the site. Each of the Commissioners present declared their business or occupation as follows. Ostly (real estate appraiser); Binkley (architect); Stadnik (civil engineer); Needham (lawyer); and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business). No one present challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, reported staff had found the applicant had met the burden of proof related to the Street Connectivity Standard. She pointed out the applicant had submitted a letter that day that held that whether or not the street should be closed, and whether or not the street met the standard were two separate issues. She said staff agreed with that observation. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, clarified that the City Manager had the authority to and had decided to temporarily close the street and the Commission could not change that, but they were to determine whether the design of the street met the Street Connectivity Standard and was appropriate design for temporary closure of a street that might be opened in the future. He clarified that the Commission could not decide to permanently close the street. He pointed out staff suggested alternative language for a related condition of approval that they believed was clearer than the language the applicant had suggested. Anmlicant Michael Robinson, 1120 NW Couch St., Tenth Fl., Portland Ore on 97209-4128, confirmed that the applicant agreed to staff -recommended language in Exhibit F-14. Malcolm Eslinger, 17999 Stafford Road, 97034, pointed out the applicant had presented two new cross sections to illustrate why the applicant proposed shallow houses positioned toward the front of the lots that would not require heavy cuts in the hillside and steep driveways, and would not block views from nearby houses. He said the applicant was no longer requesting exceptions to the required rear yard setbacks on Lots 13, 14 and 15. He pointed out that the shallowest Lots 8-10 backed up to an open space tract and not other homes. Opponents Austin, Deanna & Kyle Peters, 17958 St. Clair Drive, Lake Oswego, testified St. Clair Drive should not be made a through street because it was not wide enough for cars and the resulting traffic would pose a safety risk when they played in the street and walked to the bus stop. _Maria Fleseriu, 17961 St. Clair Drive, Lake Oswego, said she moved to Lake Oswego to enjoy a quiet environment, but Avemere construction and high school traffic disrupted it and drivers parked in front of her house to attend school events. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 5 Minutes of March 5, 2007 Colleen Peters, 17955 St, +Clair Drive, Lake Oswego, said the proposed development was good for the area, but she wanted St. Clair Drive to be closed because to open it would exacerbate an existing problem with high school traffic and overflow parking, John Salzburg, 17986 St. Clair Drive, Lake Oswego, said high school traffic was a problem. He related that drivers sometimes knocked on his door to ask him if they could park in his driveway. He was concerned that traffic from the high school would use St. Clair to cut through the neighborhood. He said the St. Clair connection should only be for pedestrians and bikes. Brent Roberts, said he and fellow high school students played ball in the street and if it were opened it would be less safe to do that. He asked that it remain closed. Cindy Lewis 17903 Ridge Lake Drive President of the Rid a Lake Park Homeowners Association, testified that opening St. Clair Drive would encourage drivers to avoid congestion by driving through the neighborhood. She said that would exacerbate the current traffic problem caused by high school traffic. Gary Zimmer, 2025 Ridge Pointe Drive, Lake Oswego, asked if it were true that the City was considering building a road connection to Atherton Drive to connect with Stafford Road, and would thereafter open St. Clair Drive. Chair Tierney recalled testimony that the parcel south of the site would be accessed via Atherton Drive. Ms. Andreades said a future connection going south would not necessarily be needed by the adjacent parcel to the south and she was not aware of any plans to divide it. Chair Tierney noted the record showed the City Manager had temporarily closed St. Clair, but it did not indicate a specific date when it would be opened. Paul Ostroff, 17766 Tree Top Lane, Chair of the Palisades Neighborhood Association, testified that the Association still wanted only limited access to St. Clair Drive because it was in the best interest of "livability." He explained they had polled residents in the area before they took that position. Deliberations There was no rebuttal testimony. The applicant waived their right to hold the record open for a final written argument, and the Commissioner began deliberations. Mr. Needham explained that even though the applicant had reduced the number of variances to setbacks, and he believed they had justified their current request for variance to rear setbacks, they had not adequately demonstrated that the other variances would help reduce the impact of the structures to be built on the site by showing the design of specific buildings. He explained that because the building envelopes might be as large as the Code allowed, he wanted to see what the houses were to look like. Ms. Ostly recalled that the applicant had explained that they positioned the houses on the slope so they would not "loom" over the street, and they also had to comply with Code height restrictions. Chair Tierney recalled the applicant had presented information to show that house positioning with the variance merited the exception to the Code. He asked if the Commissioners wanted to create a related condition of approval. Ms. Binkley said that because the design of the buildings had not been presented, the Commissioners had to imagine what kind of envelope would be on a lot and what it would look like, so it would be difficult to create a related condition without knowing more about the actual building to be set there. She asked if the Commissioners wanted to set the height on each lot according to the setback. Mr. Needham suggested reducing the overall height of the potential buildings in return for a reduced setback toward the hill side so the buildings would seem less imposing. Ms. Ostly pointed out the application was to be considered under Planned Development provisions, and an approval could call for adequate landscaping as mitigation. Ms. Binkley explained that although she did not favor the orientation of Lots 11 and 12, which were turned so the side yard was actually the front yard, the views that created made up for it. However, she said the applicant had not adequately justified the positioning of houses on Lots 4 — 7. She suggested the Commissioners think about creating mitigation criteria. For example, a proportional height limit factored on the amount of reduction of the required side yard setback on a sloped City of take Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 5 Minutes of March 5, 2007 lot. Ms. Ostly observed that Lots 8-10 backed up to an open space tract. Mr. Needham recalled that the applicant had argued that they should be granted exceptions to setbacks so they would not have to build so tall. He said they should be held to that to get the variance. Ms. Binkley recalled the applicant had supplied a cross sectional diagram that showed the position of buildings. Mr. Boone clarified that the applicant was asking for an "exception" and the Code allowed it if the result was the same or better sense of privacy and open space. He advised them to explain how they believed the applicant could better achieve that if they were leaning toward denial. Ms. Andreades advised other Code sections already addressed how allowable height was to relate to the side yard setback, and required height to "step down" in a reduced setback. She suggested the Commission consider a condition like that instead of denial. Mr. Needham indicated he could agree to add such a condition. He said he also wanted to address the street issue, but he knew the Commission could not do that. He held it was the applicant's responsibility to suggest some restrictions on individual lots where they proposed reduced setbacks and show that would accomplish their goal to present a less offensive house. He suggested the Commissioners ask the applicant to come back to offer those options. Chair Tierney recalled the City Manager had the authority to temporarily close the St. Clair Drive, and not the Commission. He suggested the Commissioners accept the proposal to close it to vehicles, except for emergency access. Ms. Ostly anticipated that if that street were not closed the neighborhood would be worse off because of the traffic. Chair Tierney suggested that high school officials consider addressing traffic impacts on the neighborhood south of the school, just as they were dealing with impacts on the neighborhood adjacent to the ball field north of the school site. He asked if and how the Commissioners wanted to address building height. The Commissioners invited the applicant to speak. ApRlicant response Mr. Robinson clarified the applicant was asking for "exceptions," not "variances." He advised that state case law considered the applicant's representations to be binding on the applicant. He reminded the Commissioners that the applicant had told there they were going to use the exceptions to gain a result that was what the Commission was trying to achieve. respect for the site, the neighborhood, and maintaining a sense of privacy that one would have without the exceptions. He explained the applicant had little choice other than to propose a PD due to the 20% open space requirement, which resulted in smaller lots. He stressed that the applicant was trying to comply with many Code standards in the application. He said the requested exceptions were fairly minimal and just the amount necessary to stay away from the slope. He said the applicant did not offer to restrict the maximum height because they did not believe that was appropriate, and it would be difficult to construct an objective condition, because many different laws had to be considered. He said the record was the evidence that the applicant intended to do what they said they would do. He said the evidence and Mr. Eslinger's history of building in the City showed the exceptions were warranted. Mr. Needham asked why the applicant could not provide a lot -by -lot analysis of how each setback achieved their goal. Mr. Robinson pointed out they had presented a cross-section, but they did not yet know precisely how each house footprint would look. He saw the legislative intent of the PD exceptions as a way to allow the applicant to satisfy the 20% open space requirement. Mr. Needham said he did not believe the intent was to "rubber stamp" everything that was proposed in a PD. He said if the applicant believed the exceptions would improve a building, they should present a lot -by -lot analysis to show that. Chair Tierney noted that the hearing record was now part of the application and he said Mr. Eslinger's presentation had convinced him the standard had been met and the applicant would follow through on that. He noted staff was also aware of that, and that the plans had to be consistent with what the Commissioners heard during the hearing. Ms. Boone advised that in case the development was not built for several years, the Commissioners should express the issues so staff could incorporate them in the record, unless the Commissioners decided the application did meet the standard to achieve the same or better sense of privacy. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 5 Minutes of March 5, 2007 Ms. Ostly moved to approve LU 06-0071, but replace Condition C(1)(b)(i) with staff -suggested language in Exhibit F-14. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it was passed 4.1. Commissioner Needham voted against. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would be held on March 19, 2007. He then announced a five-minute break in the proceedings and subsequently reconvened the meeting. V. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Pishvaie and the Commissioners observed that Planned Development applicants were asking for exceptions more often. They considered how to encourage them to be more judicious in their requests for greater lot coverage on PD lots that were typically smaller than the underlying zone allowed. He suggested if side yards were proposed to be reduced, then building height could be adjusted downward. Some Commissioners noted the open space area was often an area that was not buildable anyway, and sometimes simply looked like part of someone's side yard, so they questioned why it should be used to justify density transfer. They wondered if staff should be given leeway to determine if the exception(s) would offer an equal or greater sense of privacy, and if they were convinced it would, to also recommend a related condition for an appropriate maximum building height. Mr. Needham held the Code did not intend that exceptions in PDs were to be used to achieve increased density. Mr. Boone advised the related criteria intended to ensure a sense of privacy and appropriate scale for the zone. He said he had not heard yet why a certain size of house achieved that. Mr. Pishvaie suggested that if there were no significant natural resources to be protected in open space, staff should be less likely to support exceptions. Ms. Andreades advised staff was not currently allowed to ask for building footprints. The Commissioners generally agreed with Mr. Pishvaie's suggested approach that open space was not to be used as the primary justification for exceptions, and staff was to pay more attention to the specific justification for a requested reduction. They would consider lot coverage and FAR "averaging" issues with a more critical eye and ask for specific footprints to support that. Staff agreed to keep the Commissioners posted on the progress of land use matter related to a property on Goodall Road, and they anticipated the Commissioners would hear an application to remodel a building in Old Town soon. VL ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 9.30 p. m. espectfully su�itteijD� r nice Bader ministrative Support III Wrclm i nutcs\03-05-07. doc City of lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 5 Minutes of March 5, 2007