Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2000-12-04CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 4, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Douglas P. Cushing called the Development Review Commission meeting of December 4, 2000, to order at 7:10 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present included Chair Cushing, Vice Chair Nan Binkley and Commissioners Julie Morales, Sheila Ostly, Dave Powers and Bruce Miller. Commissioner Douglas Kiersey was excused. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Morales moved for approval of the Minutes of November 6, 2000. Ms. Ostly secondedthe motion, and it passed with Ms. Morales, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Powers, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Binkley abstained from the vote. Mr. Kiersey was not present. There were no votes against. IV. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order AP 00-0015 (LU 00-00341, an appeal by Wis and Susan Macomson Ms. Binkley moved for approval of AP 00-0015 [LU 00-00341. Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Powers, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. There were no votes against. TC 00-0405 JAP 00-161, an appeal by James Houle Ms. Ostly moved for approval of TC 00-0405 [AP 00-161. Mr. Powers seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Powers Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Mr. Kiersey was not present. There were no votes against. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 1 Minutes of December 4, 2000 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 proposes 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 Planner. The hearing had been continued from November 6, 2000. Chair Cushing opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. Ms. Binkley recused herself from hearing the application because she had not attended the prior hearing. All remaining commissioners reported that they had visited the site. Mr. Powers reported that he had listened to the taped record of the previous hearing. Chair Cushing asked if any person in attendance desired to challenge any Commissioner's right to hear the application. No one presented such a challenge. Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner, recalled that the staff had previously recommended that the application be denied unless the applicant addressed concerns related to parking, circulation and tree protection at the site. He reported that the applicant and the staff had provided alternate plans (Exhibits 28 — 36, which included staff Exhibit 33). He advised that Plan B (Exhibit 29) would have the least impact on the neighborhood, based upon the amount of paving proposed, the circulation configuration, the number of trees to be removed (one), and the distance from residential uses to the west of the site. He pointed out that Exhibit 32 explained the neighborhood association's concern that any conditional use allowed at the site should not be allowed to be intensified in the future. He advised that the proposed use was a permitted conditional use within the R-7.5 Zone and approval of the proposal would not result in a zone change. He noted the neighborhood association had not provided a traffic study to support their predictions that approval of the proposal would result in increased traffic congestion and decreased pedestrian safety in the area. He explained that the proposal did not require a vehicle turn -around area because the proposal was for less than 25 students. He advised that the staff now found the proposal could be made to satisfy Conditional Use criteria under conditions recommended in the staff report, including requirements for a drainage plan and a landscape plan showing tree mitigation and protection. Mr. Wheeler clarified for Ms. Morales that any expansion of the existing paved driveway was also required to be paved, and could not be graveled. He advised that any plan for the site was required to feature a vehicle parking and backup area that was not located in a setback area, but the Parking and Loading Standard might allow turning movements in the required yard. He also confirmed that staff findings limiting the school to a maximum of 12 students had been based upon the applicant's proposal. He explained for Mr. Powers that the garage spaces in Plan B did not count toward the parking requirement. He recalled previous testimony that students would arrive at the school City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 2 Minutes of December 4, 2000 between 8:00 and 8:30 AM and would depart at approximately 3:30 PM. Mr. Powers observed there were to be 12 students, but only four parking spaces. Mr. Wheeler agreed that the plan did not offer an ideal forward flow circulation pattern, but he advised that the Code did not require forward flow until the number of students reached 25. Mr. Powers observed it was not an ideal situation where vehicles had to back out onto a busy street, especially as students were leaving the schools. Mr. Wheeler also clarified that Plan B proposed to remove the 20 -inch Douglas fir tree, but would only remove the 36 - inch Douglas fir tree if it did not survive. Applicant John Shonkwiler, 13425 SW 72°d, Tigard, OR, 97223, appeared on behalf of the applicant. He said the applicant had originally planned to save all of the trees on the site; however, they currently understood that the 20 inch diameter tree, which was growing out of a rotting maple tree stump, would have to be removed. He recalled the staff had found that Plan B (Exhibit 29) would satisfy all of the City's requirements and he stated that the applicants believed that plan would conform to Code requirement and have the least impact the neighborhood. He recalled the Waluga Neighborhood Association desired to prevent a reduction in single-family residential uses, but he advised that position was not based upon the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. He observed that the proposal would locate the parking area closer to the east property line where school district buses and shops were stored. He noted the site was abutted on 2.5 sides by non-residential uses. He pointed out that those uses and neighbor immediately across the street had indicated they supported the proposal (Exhibit 36). He held that the applicants had endeavored to lower all impacts. He argued that the widening of the driveway and placement of the four parking spaces would not be an issue (would require no permit) if the application were simply for residential use and not for a conditional use. He stated that if the Commission could not approve Plan B, the he believed they should consider Plan E (Exhibit 35) which would require the two garage spaces to be included in the parking count. He observed that open garage doors were not atypical in a residential area. He clarified that the driveway configuration in Plan E was (of necessity) closer to the 36 inch Douglas fir tree, and might ultimately mean loss of both that tree and the 20 - inch Douglas fir tree. He noted that Plan B would save at least one tree. He pointed out that the driveway curve in Plan E matched the existing configuration and proximity of the pavement to the trees. He confirmed for Mr. Cushing that the applicants had received a memorandum from the City Engineering Department regarding application of Systems Development Charges (SDCs). None. Proponents Opponents Cindy Maddox, 4735 Heritage Lane, LO 97035, noted the staff had observed that the neighborhood had not submitted a traffic study to support their arguments regarding City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Minutes of December 4, 2000 traffic congestion and safety. She contended that it was the applicant's burden to provide such an analysis. She recalled that at the previous hearing the staff had stated that the site would not generate a significant impact and a traffic study was not necessary. She contended a study was necessary to support their finding. She related that Ted Evans, School District Facilities Manager, had informed her that the applicants had contacted him at one time to discuss their use of two district parking spaces, but they had never discussed that with the neighborhood association. She expressed her concern that students would be delivered to the site during peak traffic hours, which would reduce safety of pedestrians in the area of the site. She noted the street was narrow and barely wide enough for two buses to pass without driving on the pathway. She worried about the encroachment of commercial uses into the area of residential uses. She opined that because most homes there were owner -occupied, their owners maintained the aesthetics of the street and the proposal would adversely impact the character of the street. She held that to allow the applicants to cut down a tree would be contrary to the City's desire to be known as "Tree City, USA." She asked the Commission to deny the applicant's request for a conditional use permit. Ron Hall, Chair, Waluj!a Neighborhood Association, 15194 Quarry Road, Lake Oswego, 97035, disagreed with the staff report statement that the applicants had presented an alternate plan at the previous hearing (page 4 of the November 22, 2000 staff report). He also clarified that the Association was aware that a granting of a Conditional Use was not a zone change. He explained that the Association was actually concerned that after several years an owner of the site would apply to change the current zoning to commercial and would base his/her argument for a zone change on the fact that the site had been used as an institution and already included parking. He said that would mean commercial encroachment into the neighborhood. He presented a 1997 traffic count that had been prepared by Kathy Marcott, City Traffic Technician (Exhibit 38). He pointed out that the study had counted traffic along Douglas Way and other streets within the Waluga Neighborhood Association and he found that the street was already exceeding its function and any new use that exceeded the traffic generated by a single family dwelling should be disallowed. He held that the burden of proof of traffic impacts was the responsibility of the applicant and the staff, and not the neighborhood association. He noted the study had reported that the daily volume of 1,600 vehicle trips exceeded the normal functional classification of the street of 1,200 trips. He wondered how traffic had changed in the 3.5 years that had passed since the study had been accomplished. He argued that the application should not be allowed because it would generate more traffic than a single family residence and would decrease pedestrian safety in the area of the pathway there. He recalled that Mr. Powers had observed that drivers leaving the site would back out onto a busy street. He also contended that there would be 50 additional vehicle trips generated by the site, and not the 24 trips described by the applicant, because each entry and departure by vehicles containing students and staff was to be counted as a trip. Mr. Wheeler confirmed that the City counted one vehicle that brought a student to the site, stopped, and then drove away as two trips. He clarified for Ms. Ostly that a study of traffic generated by a nearby office use along Douglas Way would focus on the impact of City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 4 Minutes of December 4, 2000 that use on the portion of the street that connected workers there with the transit corridor and would evaluate its impact on the levels of service at intersections in the transit corridor. Mr. Hall held that Exhibit 23 did not provide evidence of current traffic volume or any measurable criteria to support the staff position that traffic generated by the site would not create a "significant impact." He asked at what measurement it would be considered "significant." He said the revised site plan in Exhibit 29 did not compensate for the traffic study in Exhibit 23, and he noted the head -in driveway configuration compromised safety. He said the City's traffic technician had concluded that the City could not support a proposal for head -in parking and vehicles backing out over the pathway used by children. He also contended the proposal did not meet Goal 12 Transportation requirements. He recalled the City had advised residents not to leave their garage doors open to prevent theft. He noted that all but one resident of Douglas Way had rescinded support of the application. He stressed that the Association did not desire to see a decrease in single-family residential homes in their neighborhood. Cheryl Uchida, 15190 SW Quarry Road, Lake Oswego, 97035, stated that she served on the Waluga Neighborhood Association Board of Directors and had resided in the neighborhood for 22 years. She observed the edges of the neighborhood had deteriorated during that time because of conditional use requests that had been approved there. She worried that the applicant's school would follow a trend of private schools to expand to serve older students and it might attempt to expand its campus by utilizing nearby property owned by the school district. She said she did not want this to happen in her neighborhood. She worried that vehicles traveling to and from the applicant's site would cut through the neighborhood, adding to the volume of traffic there and diminishing safety. She noted there was no traffic light at the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Douglas Way. Debbi Robertson, 4207 Douglas Way, Lake Oswego, 97035, expressed her concern that the applicant's plan would compromise the residential integrity of the neighborhood. She said she disagreed with the staff that the planting of two new conifers would replace a large Douglas fir tree. She said she was not in favor of approval of the conditional use permit. Carolyn Crider, 4380 Douglas Way, Lake Oswego, 97035, explained that at the time the applicant had discussed the proposal with the neighbors, they had not mentioned its impact on traffic. She said neighborhood residents wanted garage doors to be kept closed for safety and aesthetic reasons. She related that it had recently taken her five minutes to back out of her driveway due to the speed and volume of traffic. She said she did not desire to see additional traffic or vehicles backing out over the pathway. She explained she made it a practice to back into her garage. She said she did not want the area to look more commercial than it already was. Mr. Cushing asked Mr. Hall to describe the pattern of fluctuation in enrollment at the public school during recent years. Mr. Hall indicated he did not have that information. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 5 Minutes of December 4, 2000 Joyce Dixon, 4291 Douglas Way, Lake Oswego, 97035, recalled the applicant had initially told her there would be a maximum of 8 to 12 students, who would come to the school at a variety of times. She observed there had been a large increase in traffic in the area during the five years she had lived there. She noted that Lake Grove School offered daycare and before and after school care. She worried about the safety oF students in the area. She anticipated that vehicles backing out of the site would run over her garden area. She worried that additional traffic would result in an increase in garbage deposited on her property that had been generated by fast food businesses in the area. She said she could not envision larger vehicles driven by parents of students maneuvering past school buses at peak traffic hours. She suggested that neighborhood residents work together to negotiate removal of the bus barn in the area. She recalled that local intersections had been the sites of near collisions. She suggested that the applicant consider locating their school closer to Meadows Road. Larry Baker, 4348 Douglas Way, Lake Oswego, 97035, testified that he and his wife resided adjacent to the site. He said they had not been consulted about many of the proposed changes. He opined that because of the expansion of parking at the site it would cease to resemble residential property. He indicated he was concerned about traffic generated by the proposed use and he did not support the proposal. Neither for nor Against Robin Campbell, 4311 Douglas Way, Lake Oswego, 97035, stated she had resided directly across the street from the site for 15 years. She recalled that for most of those years the house at the site had been a rental that had not been maintained at the same level as an owner occupied house. She noted that after the applicant took ownership of the property, they had landscaped the yard and had improved the appearance of the site. She said she had initially supported the proposal because she had been assured the exterior appearance of the house would not change, and she had not been aware of proposed changes to the parking area. She acknowledged that she understood that conditional use approval meant that City parking requirements would be imposed. She opined that Plan B was the least aesthetically pleasing and she preferred either Plan D (that appeared to save all of the trees) or Plan E, which if properly landscaped (with shrubbery instead of lawn patches) would buffer the parking spaces and make the site look more residential. She agreed that bus traffic was a prime contributor to traffic in the area and their routes should be changed. She observed that Plans D and E provided adequate room for vehicles to turn around and exit the site frontward, but Plan B would cause drivers to back out of the site. She said she supported the applicant's request to use the site as a school because that was more appropriate than the previous rental home use if the parking area could be landscaped and made to look like it fit a residential area. Rebuttal Mr. Shonkwiler explained the applicant had provided a traffic analysis that had been by Hallmark Development. He observed that it projected traffic to the year 2010 and City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 6 Minutes of December 4, 2000 showed the nearby intersections at Level of Service A and B. He held that it was not logical for residents to assume that all of the traffic generated by the site would come through the neighborhood, because some traffic might originate at homes within the neighborhood, and most of the traffic would come from Boones Ferry Road. He said that because the school was a preschool daycare, some students would arrive in the morning and leave at noon, and some would arrive at 1:30 and leave at 3:30 and 4:40 PM. He also noted that some parents of children at the applicant's school were already using Douglas Way to drop off their older children at the public school there. He confirmed that the applicant would replace the removed tree, as the Code required. He observed that an arborist had questioned the health of a Douglas fir tree because it was growing out of a rotting maple stump. He advised that any future proposal to change the use would require a public hearing and the applicants would be required to satisfy the applicable criteria. He recalled that although the staff had not favored Plan E (Exhibit 35), the applicant believed it was a viable plan and there would not be a problem with leaving the garage door open. He said they would agree not to store anything in the garage other than cars. Mr. Wheeler advised that the staff had no record of the Hallmark traffic analysis. The Commissioners also indicated they had not seen such an exhibit. Mr. Shonkwiler offered to submit it. Mr. Boone advised that if new evidence was submitted into the record, the City was to provide an opportunity to others to review it. Mr. Cushing agreed that it could be submitted for the record and the record could be held open for written responses. Mr. Shonkwiler requested the record be held open for seven days for submission of additional evidence. Mr. Cushing announced that the record would be held open until December 12, 2000, and the Commission would hold deliberations on December 18, 2000. Mr. Cushing announced a five-minute break in the meeting. Deliberation Ms. Ostly moved to continue LU 00-0072 to December 18, 2000. Mr. Powers seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Powers, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Binkley abstained from the vote. Mr. Kiersey was not present. There were no votes against. 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 lOBD). The staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner. Chair Cushing opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. All Commissioners reported they had visited the site. Chair Cushing asked if any person in attendance desired to challenge any City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 7 Minutes of December 4, 2000 Commissioner's right to hear the application. No one presented such a challenge. Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He advised that the application was to be reviewed as a new application and the record of the hearing would be the basis for any subsequent appeals. He recalled the staff had already reviewed the application administratively had determined that setback requirements had been violated. He explained that the front and side yard setbacks were less than what was currently required, due to an addition and a deck that had been added to the front of the dwelling. He recalled that the owner of abutting Tax Lot 400 had subsequently agreed to participate in a lot line adjustment to correct one of the two setback deficiencies (the side yard on the east). Mr. Wheeler explained that the dwelling on Tax Lot 400 had been built in 1930 and setbacks on that property were nonconforming. He advised that changes to the applicant's dwelling were necessary to bring the site into conformance with either setbacks required at the time the addition had been constructed or current setback requirements. He said the applicant was currently also seeking the lot line adjustment and a partition which would result in two irregularly shaped parcels. He reported that all public facilities were available to the site. He acknowledged that it was possible that the structure had been in conformance with the Code at the time it was constructed, but the front deck did not conform to the side or front yard requirements that were in effect at that time. He advised that the property would conform to zone lot sizes, setbacks and lot coverage after the lot line adjustment and prior to the partition, and each proposed parcel could also meet the minimum lot size requirements of the zone (7,500 square feet). However, front and side yard setbacks would need to be corrected to meet setback and Hillside Protection standards. He concluded the proposal met or improved on the existing nonconforming setbacks for both the adjustment and the proposed partition, with the exception that a modification was necessary to bring the deck portion of the structure into compliance with the setbacks allowed by the Code. He advised that the proposal would comply with the 25 -foot Special Lake Setback. He suggested that instead of requiring the applicant to conform to Development Standards by installing a streetlight that could create a safety hazard because it would be the only spot of illumination in the area, the applicant should be required to sign a nonremonstrance agreement for a future Local Improvement District (LID) to improve the street. He noted that the required parking was available on a paved surface of Parcel 1 or in the new garage. He recommended a condition to address drainage by requiring that development of either parcel was to provide a properly designed drainage connection to a positive system. He acknowledged that the street was narrower than the City's 20 foot minimum and did not feature curbs, gutters or sidewalks; however, the estimated 10 additional trips per day generated by the additional dwelling were not sufficiently significant to require street improvement until a future LID achieved street improvements. Mr. Wheeler pointed out that the applicant had provided a slope analysis that showed the amount of land disturbance was fairly low; however, staff had determined that the applicant's proposed two foot wide impact zone around outside foundation wall of the structure should be enlarged to a minimum of 5 feet to provide protection from construction activity. The staff had calculated that there would be an area of 952 square feet impacting 50% or greater slopes, which was more than the 30% maximum allowed. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 8 Minutes of December 4, 2000 He clarified that the degree of impact would depend on the final floor plan for the dwelling, and issuance of a building permit would be based upon compliance with the Hillside Protection Standard, or it might be necessary for the applicant to seek a variance. He advised that both parcels would conform to the Access Standard requirement for 25 feet of street frontage and the existing driveway could be made to comply with the Driveway Standard. He also advised that the Fire Code required either a turnaround within 150 feet of the most remote corner of the structure, or installation of a rated fire protection system. He explained that Systems Development Charges would be imposed on the development and the applicant would be required to record a plat showing the partition within two years of approval. He advised that the applicant has not proposed a plan or demonstrated that removal of one of the five trees at the site was necessary. He suggested that the tree removal process could be accomplished at the time of building permit application. He explained the site was exempt from Solar Access requirements because of its northerly facing slope. He concluded the proposal could be made to comply with applicable criteria through the imposition of staff -recommended conditions listed on pages 16 — 19 of the original staff report, which included provisions for a common driveway easement, the nonremonstrance agreement for street lighting and street improvements, a tree removal mitigation plan, installation of tree protection fencing during construction, and a requirement for a final slope analysis to demonstrate compliance with the Hillside Standard. He pointed out that the original staff decision had also approved the proposal. Mr. Wheeler reported that a neighbor, Mark Santos, had provided new evidence that morning (Mr. Santos' letter and photographs in memorandum dated December 4, 2000). He clarified for Ms. Binkley that the table on page 11 of the original staff report referenced Exhibits 10, 17 and 18. Applicant Dorothy Cofield, 4248 Galewood Street, Lake Oswello, 97035, stated she was an attorney representing Diedre Marriott in place of Residential Consulting and Building, Inc. She presented new exhibits that included a revision of the front setback; a copy of Oregon Style Architecture that was to show why the style of the front of the existing Marriott residence should not be changed; a Cultural Survey by Clackamas County to show the importance of the Marriott residence; a copy of the 1968 Lake Oswego setback exception Code provision; an affidavit of Donald Atchison, who owned the property in 1968, to the effect that he was granted all necessary building permits at the time of construction of the addition; and photographs showing that if the applicant was required to comply with the current front setback (rather than the 1968 averaged setback) aportion of the residence would be destroyed. She first addressed recommended condition A.(1.)(a.), which required the applicant to remove the two -foot maintenance deck and a portion of the structure in order to comply with a 15 foot setback requirement. She stated the distance from the deck and eaves of the roof to the front property line was 5.8 feet. She advised that both current and 1968 setback requirements allowed an averaged front setback because neighboring properties did not meet the applicable setback; however, the current minimum setback was 15 feet and the 1968 regulations allowed a less that 15 foot setback. She pointed out that the addition's roof overhang also acted as a protective porch over the two -foot wide deck and both the deck and overhang were the same City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 9 Minutes of December 4, 2000 distance from the property line. Ms. Cofield presented a copy of the microfiche record showing a permit to construct the addition in 1968, and an inspection record for the foundation of the addition (Exhibit 32). She also presented Mr. Atchison's affidavit that he was owner of the property in 1968, that he had added a new front addition and deck at that time, and to the best of his recollection he had received all necessary approvals from the City to construct the addition and after its completion he had never received any notice from the City that the construction was not in compliance with the City's land use regulations. She related that Mr. Atchison's architect had passed away and his firm was unable to locate any other records related to the addition. She said the fact that Mr. Atchison had received a permit and had hired an architect for the project was evidence that the addition had been constructed according to the then existing setback regulations. She explained that she had calculated that the applicant's west setback of 13.9 feet and the negative setback of Tax Lot 400 (of —2 feet, extending into the right of way of Lakeshore Road) could be modified to achieve a setback of 5.8 feet; however, she acknowledged the staff had advised that the negative setback should not be included in the calculation, and a 6- to 12 - inch portion of the maintenance deck would need to be removed. She argued that the addition had been legally constructed in 1968, the requirements that applied at that time should be applied, and the setback should be allowed to be averaged to below the 15 -foot minimum, for a resulting setback of either 5.8 feet or 6.9 feet. She noted that both the Marriott site and Tax Lot 400 (the Kerl residence) did not meet he current side yard setback requirement. And the lot line adjustment would mean that Tax Lot 400 would be less nonconforming. She acknowledged that the applicant's slope analysis showed some slopes over 50% (page 11 of the original staff report). She recalled that Residential Consulting and Building, Inc. had presented a residential structure footprint that would create a 2 -foot disturbance area around the building pad for a maximum disturbance area of 472 square feet. She noted the staff had increased the disturbance perimeter to five feet for an area of 952 square feet, which was greater than the 30% maximum. She stated that the applicant understood she would have to decrease the house footprint to meet the 30% maximum at the time she applied for a building permit and she would build within that constraint. She said the applicant would meet all Hillside Protection requirements. She disagreed with Mr. Santos' contention that development on slopes greater than 50% could only happen after the applicant had showed that density transfer could not be achieved.. She said the applicant's site plan demonstrated that there was no other location on the site in which to position the house pad because of the location of the existing driveway to the Marriott residence and the location of the garage. She said emergency access was provided; the geological report showed the design would not cause erosion; and the pad for a 3,000 square foot home was the minimum necessary. She noted that the staff recommended that the footprint be significantly reduced to accommodate the setback and five-foot disturbance perimeter. She held that a home that was less than 1,500 square feet was not reasonable in that area of Lake Oswego. She held the proposal met the Hillside Protection Standard. She specified that neighbors within 300 feet of the site would be notified of any blasting schedule, and blasting activity would be reviewed at the time of application for a building permit and would have to meet the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 10 Minutes of December 4, 2000 None. Proponents Opponents Mark Santos, 1175 Lake Shore Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that he and his wife resided on a lot adjacent to the site on the west. He explained that the applicant could achieve density transfer by siting the garage and house along the edge of the property line next to an existing parking easement. He said such a plan would not disturb any of the sensitive hillside and wetland areas. Mr. Cushing clarified that the Commission was not reviewing the exact locations of the new structures and driveway at the hearing. Mr. Santos contended that the map included in the Notice of Development Review had not sufficiently distinguished for the neighbors that both the Kerl and Marriott properties were included, the size of the site, the fact that both a lot line adjustment and a partition were being requested and the location of two "blind" corners at the site. He also noted the roadway was only 18 feet wide at the site and the Kerl property encroached two feet into the roadway right of way. He said that made it a very dangerous street. He contended the applicants could not be allowed to partition the property if they did not conform to Code requirements. Mr. Wheeler clarified for Mr. Santos that a surveyor had advised that the modified setbacks would be 5 feet on the west side and 4.8 feet on the east side of the site. Mr. Santos related that a petition signed by neighbors showed that the neighborhood was against the application. He said a variance hearing should have been held to allow the neighborhood to testify about their concern that 10 or 12 more vehicle trips per day would be generated in an area where children walked on a very narrow street. He said the notice of development review had not been clear about what was to be reviewed and he requested that another notice be sent. He said if the partition was granted the applicant would have to move large boulders and disrupt the hillside in order to build the new structure. He asked that the applicant be required to use density transfer and position new structures further up the hill where the topography was flat. He opined that the site should never be developed due to the degree of its slope. He held that the neighbors should be afforded the opportunity to provide further testimony about the application. He submitted a copy of the Notice of Proposed Development dated August 29, 2000, for the record (Exhibit R). He explained that it did not show that a blind curve of the road was located at a corner created by the lot line adjustment. He said the City had only Mr. Atchison's word that the addition he built was at the front of the house, and not on the side of the house, and there was nothing in City records to reflect that the City had approved the construction. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 11 of 11 Minutes of December 4, 2000 Ms. Morales observed that the neighbors had known about the development request since the time they had signed a petition opposing it in September. Mr. Santos explained that more residents would have attended the hearing, but many of them had scheduling conflicts. Adair R. Miller, 702 Middlecrest, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified that she had helped circulate the petition in September. She said she had resided directly across the street from the site for 20 years. She read her statement into the record (Exhibit Q). It relayed her concern about street safety. She explained that some drivers parked in her front yard when they visited the Kerl and Marriott homes. She predicted that after she constructed a fence around her property, the available parking space along Lakeshore Road would be greatly reduced and vehicles parked on the street would exacerbate the hazard there. She also indicated her concern that the current trend toward infill housing would reduce quality of life in the City of Lake Oswego. Martis Carson, 740 North Shore Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated she agreed with the concerns related in previous testimony and she explained that she was aware of four other neighbors who could not attend the hearing due to out of town travel and illness. She said the neighborhood was special and featured narrow roads. She indicated her appreciation of speed control devices, such as speed bumps, that reduced vehicle speeds. She related that the Notice of Proposed Development had been confusing to nearby residents because it made the site seem larger than it actually was. She recalled the staff's recommendation for a condition that the applicant was to sign a nonremonstrance agreement was in conflict with residents' desire not to improve Lakeshore Road (by widening or with sidewalks) in order to discourage traffic in the area. She clarified for Mr. Cushing that her house was 50 years old and almost every home along Northshore Drive had required a variance due to the narrow roadway. Mr. Cushing asked her about the dimensions of the setbacks for her home. She answered that parking for visitors to her home was a challenge, but residents were willing to put up with parking hassles to preserve neighborhood character. Robert Gould, 760 Lakeshore Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified he resided across the street from Mr. Santos. He indicated his concern that construction on the new parcel would block at least half of his view of the lake, disturb the hillside and add more sediment to the lake. He said the map that had been provided in the notice was confusing. He recalled that visitors to homes along the roadway typically parked their vehicles in the roadway, although his own home (built in 1985) featured a significant setback from the roadway and his garage and drive accommodated six vehicles. He observed that the roadway became a one-way "blind" road near the Kerl house. He also noted the current size of the Marriott property which currently could accommodate a lot of off street parking, would not be able to accommodate that parking after the partition. He described the current condition along the narrow roadway as "workable, but dangerous" and he noted it was almost completely blocked at night. He advised that the existing streetlight near his house did not extend light to the area of the "blind" curve. He said approval of the proposal would compound the parking and safety problem in the area. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 12 of 12 Minutes of December 4, 2000 None. Neither for nor Against Rebuttal Ms. Cofield referred to the applicant's site plan in Exhibit 22. She said the applicant did not desire to change the design of the existing house, which had been designed in the 1960s by a prominent architect. She said the applicant was certain that the front setbacks were correct at 5.8 Eet because at 15 feet a portion of the historically significant home would need to be removed. She pointed out that an asphalt area in front of the deck was to remain and would provide area for parking. She explained that the property west of the existing home that could accommodate approximately nine vehicles and the driveway would more than serve the site during construction. She stated that the new lot would generate 8 to 10 trips per day from a new single-family residence and would not burden the streets much more than the current traffic. She advised that the site was served by adequate utilities, including the 40 -foot right of way along Lakeshore Road, and the applicant would agree to sign a nonremonstrance agreement to an LID to improve the street in the future. She said the footprint of the new house on the new parcel would meet the standard of not disturbing more than 30% of the hillside. She said the site plan demonstrated there was not another place on the site to locate the house and meet the side yard setbacks of at least 10 feet. She said the side setbacks would be too narrow if the new house was placed in the location that Mr. Santos had suggested. She said the new house would fit the character of the style of neighborhood homes. She advised that the Code provided that failure to receive notice did not invalidate the proceedings. She observed that the notice of proposed development had included a contact telephone number that neighbors could have called to obtain more information from the Community Development Department. She asked that recommended Condition A (1)(a) be revised to require the applicant to demonstrate that the front setback of 5.8 feet or 6.9 feet (depending upon what measurements were used in the calculation) had been met. She explained this condition was to ensure the structure would not have to be removed. She advised that the applicant might be able to meet that setback via a street vacation or a variance or removing a small portion of the maintenance deck. Delibe ration Mr. Santos requested that the record be held open for an additional seven days to allow submission of additional written evidence or testimony. Mr. Cushing noted that the record would be held open to December 11, 2000, for Mr. Santos and any other parties who desired to submit additional written evidence would have until December 13, 2000, to do so. Mr. Boone advised that if the existing residence was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, approval of the application with a condition that the structure would be brought into compliance did not stay the City's right to proceed with enforcement City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 13 of 13 Minutes of December 4, 2000 through some other means. He noted it could take up to two years for the applicant to record the partition, but the City could take enforcement action at an earlier time. Ms. Ostly moved to continue AP 00-191LU 00-00101 to December 18, 2000. Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Powers, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Mr. Kiersey was not present. There were no votes against. VI. GENERAL PLANNING Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, announced that interviews for two open Commission positions were to be held on December 7, 2000. He also related that the staff was to draft a report from Commission to the City Council regarding the Commission's accomplishments. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Cushing adjourned the meeting at 10:20 PM. Respectfully submitted. Janice Bader Senior Secretary 1:\dre\minutes\12-04-00. doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 14 of 14 Minutes of December 4, 2000