Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2000-12-18CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 18, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Nan Binkley called the Development Review Commission meeting of December 18, 2000, to order at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present included Vice Chair Binkley and Commissioners Julie Morales, Sheila Ostly and Dave Powers. Chair Douglas Cushing and Commissioner Bruce Miller were excused. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner; Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. IV. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order None. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 00-0072, a request by Steve and Doris Baird for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing single family dwelling into a Montessori School. The application also proposed to add more parking and additional landscaping to the site. The site is located at 4320 Douglas Way (Tax Lot 13800 of Tax Map 21E 8BC). The staff coordinator is Michael. R. Wheeler, Associate Hanner. The hearing had been continued from November 6, 2000 and December 4, 2000. Ms. Binkley opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. She asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. All Commissioners present indicated they had visited the site. Ms. Binkley reported that she had listened to the taped record of the previous hearing. She then asked if any person in attendance desired to challenge any Commissioner's right to hear the application. No one presented such a challenge. Ms. Binkley recalled that the hearing had been continued to allow submission of City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 1 Minutes of December 18, 2000 additional written evidence. The applicant waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Ms. Binkley closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberations Ms. Ostly recalled that the staff has recommended approval of the application, subject to conditions that related to parking and tree removal. Ms. Morales observed that a large number of school children passed the site on their way to a nearby school and she worried about their safety. She also recalled that the staff had advised that if the owners lived at the site, no conditional use approval would be necessary. The staff clarified the required setbacks for Ms. Binkley. She indicated that she believed the proposal was not in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. However, she also observed that if the owners resided there they would not need Conditional Use Permit to use the site for daycare purposes. Ms. Ostly indicated she also worried about pedestrian safety at the site. Mr. Powers indicated that he was concerned about the parking proposal for the site. Ms. Ostly moved for denial of LU 00-0072. Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Powers and Ms. Ostly voting yes. Mr. Cushing and Mr. Miller were not present. Ms. Binkley announced that the final vote on the findings, conclusions and order would be held on January 3, 2001. AP 00-19/[LU 00-00101, an appeal by Mark Santos of the Planning Director's decision approving a lot line adjustment between two existing lots and creating two new parcels from the adjusted Tax Lot 500. The applicant is Residential Consulting and Building. The site is located at 752 and 753 Lakeshore Road (Tax lots 400 & 500 of Tax Map 21E I OBD). The staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner. Vice Chair Binkley opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. She asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. All Comnissioners present reported they had visited the site. Ms. Binkley asked if any person in attendance desired to challenge any Commissioner's right to hear the application. No one presented such a challenge. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, related that the applicant had submitted proposed new language to address the setback issue if the Commission found it was nonconforming. He also related that staff was prepared to provide the Commission with their recommendation regarding that aspect of the proposal if the Commission requested it. He related that the applicant had waived her right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Ms. Binkley closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 2 Minutes of December 18, 2000 Deliberations Ms. Ostly observed that the applicant had included a —2 -foot setback at the adjacent property in calculating the average setback in the area, and she asked if the City had ever allowed a negative setback. Mr. Boone advised that the negative setback could not be used because the City required a structure's setback to be measured from the property line, and one property owner's yard could not be on another person's property. Ms. Binkley recalled that the owner of an adjacent house on Tax Lot 400 had not been required to remove part of their garage in order to obtain a variance remodel the structure. Mr. Wheeler observed that house had been constructed in the 1930's. He confirmed that because the applicant's louse had been built at a time when City Codes were applicable, her house was not legally nonconforming, and it appeared that a portion of the front deck might need to be removed to resolve that issue. Mr. Powers observed that documents provided by the architect included findings that were not reflected in City records. Mr. Boone advised that if the Commission found the house was not legally nonconforming, they should address the issue of a 1.1 -foot deficit in the setback. He noted the staff was prepared to make a recommendation regarding how to deal with the deficit without destroying a portion of the house. Mr. Wheeler explained that the level of nonconformity had become clearer as the case evolved, and a deficit that staff had initially believed was as large as 15 feet had later been reduced to 1.1 -feet. Mr. Boone observed that the City had issued a permit at the time the house was built but staff could find no record showing the constructed house conformed to the Code requirement at that time that allowed an averaged setback, and no record that a setback variance had been granted. He clarified for the Commission that the staff recommended the setback average be calculated using a setback of zero and not —2 feet for the adjacent property, which would result in an average area setback of 6.8 feet. He said the Commission could find that owners of the site had permission to base their setback on area averaged setbacks, but that they went beyond that at the time of construction, resulting in a setback that was 1.1 foot less that required. He advised that if that was a finding, the Commission could require the house to be brought into compliance with the setback requirement. He explained that the applicant could apply for a variance to reduce the averaged setback by 1.1 feet; or the applicant could request a lot line adjustment to extend the lot line by 1.1 feet. Ms. Morales asked about the age of the deck. Mr. Wheeler observed that it appeared to be in good condition, the staff had no evidence as to whether it had been replaced since the house had been built, and there was no record that a permit had been granted to replace it. Mr. Boone recalled the applicant had testified that she would bring the house into compliance with the setback requirement one way or another, perhaps by seeking a City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Minutes of December 18, 2000 variance or a street vacation to allow the property line to be relocated outward by approximately a foot. Ms. Binkley noted that the applicant's letter in Exhibit S, page 4, proposed a change in the language in recommended Condition A(1)(a). Ms. Morales moved for denial of AP 00-19 [and approval of LU 00-0010, subject to the conditions in the staff report, with a modification of Condition A(1)(a) to reflect the language recommended in Exhibit S. Mr. Powers seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Powers and Ms. Ostly voting yes. Mr. Cushing and Mr. Miller were not present. Ms. Binkley announced that the final vote on the case would take place at the January 3, 2001, DRC meeting. LU 00-0071, a request by Avamere Development for approval of the following: • Construction of a 56 -unit Alzheimer's Senior Care Facility • Establishment of a Protection Area for a Resource Conservation district along the southerly portion of the property. • Removal of 170 trees. The site is located at 4550 Carman Drive. The staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, related that the applicant had requested that the hearing be continued to January 3, 2001, and had waived the 120 -day time limit for review of the application. Ms. Morales moved to continue LU 00-007 to January 3, 2001. Mr. Powers seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Powers and Ms. Ostly voting yes. Mr. Cushing and Mr. Miller were not present. VI. GENERAL PLANNING None. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission Vice Chair Binkley adjourned the meeting at 8:05 PM. Respectfully submitted. Janice Bader Senior Secretary 1:\dre\minutes\12-18-00.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 4 Minutes of December 18, 2000