Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2000-05-01CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 1, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Julie Morales called the Development Review Commission meeting of May 1, 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 Chair Morales and Commissioners Doug Cushing*, Dave Powers, Douglas Kiersey, Sheila Ostly and Bruce Miller. Vice Chair Nan BinUey was excused. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Sandy Ingalls, Planning Technician; David Powell, City Attorney and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Kiersey moved for approval of the Minutes of March 20, 2000. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Mr. Powers, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Binkley and Mr. Cushing were not present. There were no votes against. * Mr. Cushing arrived at 7:03 PM. Mr. Miller moved for approval of the Minutes of April 3, 2000. Mr. Kiersey seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Powers, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly voting yes. Ms. Binkley was not present. There were no votes against. IV. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order None. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 00-0001, a request by Miller Cook Architects for a Development Review permit approval to construct a one-story, 5,300 square foot addition (including basement) on the south side of the existing US West Communications switch building. Eight trees are proposed to be removed. The four parking spaces that will be removed for the building addition will be City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 8 Minutes of May 1, 2000 relocated to the east side of the building, in a secured garage. The site is located at: 531 First Street, Tax Lots 700 & 800 of Tax Map 21E 3DD. The staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. Chair Morales 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 reported they were familiar with the site. Chair Morales asked if any person in attendance desired to challenge any Commissioner's right to hear the application. No one presented such a challenge. Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, presented the staff report. He related the applicant sought to attach an addition to an existing building. He advised that the proposal was not subject to the Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standards [LODS 23] because it did not qualify as a 50% or greater change in the appearance of any building elevation. He related the history of the site's landscaping requirement. He recalled that in 1982, the DRC had granted a variance to allow the percentage of landscaping at the site to be reduced from 15% to 7%. He noted that a staff review of the 1982 plans showed that in order to attain 7% landscaped area, landscaping within the public right-of-way had to have been included in the calculated area. He pointed out that the 1982 approval findings found that only 12 parking spaces were required because the general public did not use the building. He recommended that no additional parking spaces be required due to the nature of the current application. He advised that the application met all applicable criteria and he recommended approval of the application subject to conditions recommended on pages 13 — 15 of the staff report. He noted those conditions provided for maintaining 7% landscaping, striping of parking spaces, and a requirement to address a buckling retaining wall along the south property line. Applicant Joseph Bopuiren, 2081 NW Everett Street, #502, Portland, OR, 97209, explained the applicant desired to expand their facility to accommodate an increase in business due to Internet usage. He said they would create new parking spaces in the garage and install a new planting strip that would allow them to continue to conform to the 1982 variance condition regarding 7% landscaping. He recalled the staff had suggested that ornamentation be added to the utilitarian canopy railing, and he requested guidance from the DRC. He confirmed there were two full time employees who worked eight-hour days at the site and several technicians visited the site to work on cabling and switchgear. He stated that the technicians used the loading bay and then garage parking. Mr. Pishvaie clarified for Mr. Powers that tree roots were undermining the south wall and the applicant had agreed to consult with a structural engineer to determine how to stabilize the wall. Mr. Bogurhen confirmed that drainage tile was installed behind the wall. Mr. Pishvaie also clarified for Ms. Morales that ornamentation of the canopy wall had not been included in the recommended conditions of approval because staff was not certain there was sufficient legal authority for the DRC to require it. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 8 Minutes of May 1, 2000 Mr. Bogurhen presented examples of colors and materials to be used. He clarified that a blue/gray color would be consistent with the existing building and its weathered aluminum parapet wall. Opponents None. Neither for nor Against None. Rebuttal None. The applicant waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Ms. Morales closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberation Mr. Cushing moved for approval of LU 00-0001, subject to the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Powers seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Powers, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Binkley was not present. There were no votes against. Ms. Morales announced the final vote on LU 00-0001 Findings, Conclusions and Order would be made on May 17, 2000. LU 00-0029, an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny the requested tree -cutting permit by Lisa and Mark MacKenzie to remove one 38 -inch Cottonwood tree from their front yard. The site is located at: 16 Westridge Drive, Tax Lot 128 of Tax Map 21E 17CD. The staff coordinator is Sandy Ingalls, Planning Technician. Chair Morales 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. None were reported. All Commissioners present reported they were familiar with the site. No one in attendance challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Sandy Ingalls, Planning Technician, explained that because the application had been submitted prior to the adoption of the new Tree Code, it was subject to the provisions of the Emergency Tree Code. She advised that the Emergency Tree Code provided that a tree of 12" diameter or greater was not to be removed unless it was dead, dying, hazardous, or no other reasonable alternatives were available. She recalled that the tree stood alone in the middle of the applicant's front yard and appeared to be healthy, and not a hazard, dead or dying — and for City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 8 Minutes of May 1, 2000 those reasons the application had been denied. David Powell, City Attorney, advised Ms. Morales that if the application had been submitted under the new Tree Code, a Type II Permit would have been required and the applicants would have been permitted to present a development application; show that the removal would not have a negative impact; or show that they had no practicable alternative to removing it. Ms. Morales and Mr. Cushing asked if the applicants would have been allowed to cut the tree if they had provided a specific landscape plan for their front yard. Mr. Powell and Mr. Pishvaie clarified that the new Tree Code allowed landscaping designs to be considered during review of a tree -removal application. However, Mr. Powell advised that this application was to be reviewed under the Emergency Tree Ordinance, which provided that any tree over 12" caliper may not be removed unless it was not healthy or there was no other alternative available to the applicants. He noted the applicants could decide to reapply under the newer Code. Applicant Mark McKenzie, 16 Westridge Drive, Lake Oswego, 97034, explained the tree distributed a lot of sticky pods each spring, which would pit automobile paint and stain their driveway and entryway carpeting black. He acknowledged that the tree was large and healthy. He recalled that the City of Portland did not allow cottonwood trees to be planted along street curbs. Ms. Ingalls confirmed for Ms. Morales that cottonwood trees were not on the City of Lake Oswego's approved street tree listing. Mr. McKenzie indicated he would consider replacing the tree with a dogwood tree. He confirmed for Mr. Powers that tree roots and drainage problems had cracked the driveway. Opponents None Neither for nor Against None. Rebuttal None. Ms. Morales closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliherntions City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 8 Minutes of May 1, 2000 Mr. Powers advised that cottonwood trees were messy, produced a proliferation of suckers, and absorbed a lot of water through their shallow roots. He predicted the tree would have an adverse impact on a new driveway and a new lawn. He observed the tree trunk had grown into a split trunk in order to seek more sunlight, which meant that as it grew higher at an angle it would become unstable, and could break and fall under an accumulation of ice. He advised that the applicants should be allowed to remove the tree and plant another type of tree. Mr. Powell advised that the Code provided that the DRC determination could be made after they had considered alternative site or landscaping plans that would lessen the impact on trees. He suggested that if the applicants decided to resubmit their application under the newer Tree Code they should also submit a landscaping plan. Ms. Morales observed that landscape design was often utilized to solve a problem — which in this case was a problem tree. Mr. Cushing indicated that the application should be approved because the applicants did not have a reasonable alternative method of dealing with the tree. He said approval should be subject to submission of a landscaping plan that provided for the planting of two additional trees anywhere in the new lawn area. Mr. Kiersey observed the applicants had extensively remodeled their house and he held that the tree had a negative impact on the house and the landscaping. Mr. Cushing moved for approval of LU 00-0001, subject to the conditions in the staff report and submission of a landscaping plan that provided for the planting of two additional trees anywhere in the new lawn area. Mr. Kiersey seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Kiersey, Mr. Powers, Mr. Miller and Ms. Ostly voting yes. Ms. Binkley was not present. There were no votes against. LU 00-0037, an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny the requested tree cutting permit by Jane and Gregory Drew to remove one 15 inch Douglas Fir Tree from their side yard. The site is located at: 6 Dover Way, Tax Lot 3810 of Tax Map 2 1 E 1713C. Staff coordinator is Sandy Ingalls, Planning Technician. Chair Morales 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 except Ms. Morales reported they had visited the site. Ms. Morales related that she was familiar with the area. No one in attendance challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. No one presented such a challenge. Sandy Ingalls, Planning Technician, presented the staff report dated April 19, 2000, and introduced three new exhibits (Exhibits 10, 11 and 12). She clarified for the Commissioners that the current Tree Code (and not the Emergency Tree Code) applied to the application. She related the applicants desired to remove a healthy 15 -inch caliper Douglas fir tree in order to City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 8 Minutes of May 1, 2000 construct a new two -car garage. She advised that if the site plan was modified to slightly move the garage footprint and remove a retaining wall two trees could be saved. She recommended the tree -cutting permit be denied and protective fencing be required to protect the two adjoining trees during construction. She also advised that if one of the two trees was removed, the other could also be impacted. She clarified for Mr. Cushing that an issue regarding utility lines had not been resolved. Applicant Jane Drew, 6 Dover Way, Lake Oswego, 97034, related the applicants had discussed their preliminary construction plans with planning staff and had received preliminary approval of the project approximately two months prior to the hearing. She said she and her husband had resided on the site for 10 years. She referred to photographs of the site and noted it included 30 trees and a slope. She explained the project would provide additional living space for her family, which also included her mother. She noted the applicants had provided a preliminary landscaping plan showing they would replant evergreen trees along the property boundary, and she related they had already planted six new trees. She stressed that if the garage footprint was modified as suggested by the staff drainage would be impacted; the cost of the project would be increased by approximately $15,000; and retaining walls would be required on both sides of the structure. She pointed out that neighbors had submitted letters indicating their support of the application. She said her plan was to remove one tree and protect the other. She noted an arborist had recommended that the remaining Douglas fir tree be pruned Ms. Drew clarified for the Commissioners that the arborist had been asked to review the health of the two Douglas fir trees and had not addressed the impact on one tree of removing the other tree. She also clarified the site was one-half acre in size and contained a two-story structure and a two -car garage. Dave Spitzer, 633 NE Mason Street, Portland, OR, stated he was the project architect. He explained that he had positioned the garage so that it was at the same level as the driveway. He advised that if the garage was pushed further back on the site a drop in elevation would have to be addressed and surface water might tend to drain toward the garage. He said that kind of modification would necessitate retaining walls on two sides of the house. He said that one could be covered by dirt; however, on the other side the wall would need to be made increasingly taller as the garage was pushed back on the site. He calculated that 30 feet of retaining wall would be required along the driveway. He said his plan utilized a foundation wall instead of a retaining wall, and no retaining wall would be necessary along the driveway. He said two or three feet of foundation would be exposed. He clarified for Ms. Morales that the elevation of the garage was approximately 362 feet. He also opined that drivers should not have to back as far as 60 to 70 feet to back out of the driveway. Ms. Drew explained the applicants had determined that there was no reasonable alternative siting plan for their new structure; the plan they had proposed would enhance their house; and they were willing to plant additional trees on the site. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 8 Minutes of May 1, 2000 Mr. Spitzer clarified for the Commissioners that the required setback was 15 feet; the proposed garage was 20 to 25 feet from the house; and the garage was to be 22 feet wide, plus an additional 3 to 4 feet for steps. He noted that the new trees the applicants would plant would make the site more attractive as they grew. He said the proposed garage would be well outside the drip line of the tree to be retained, based on where its roots were located. Ms. Drew clarified that she had marked the locations of trees on a topographical survey map. Mr. Spitzer referred the Commissioners to his drawings on page 24 and 25. He pointed out that the staff drawing was on page 27. He noted that Alternative A on page 24 showed the garage was parallel to the property line; was setback 15 feet; featured a couple of trees on its east side; and connected with a short driveway of approximately 400 square feet. He noted that Alternative B showed the garage pushed back and rotated on the site (due to the topography); a small retaining wall and a longer driveway. He noted the staff drawing illustrated a driveway that turned before it met the garage. Opponents None. Neither for nor Against None. Rebuttal None. Ms. Morales closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberations Mr. Powers observed that the tree should be removed because it would be very close to the garage whether the structure was constructed in the proposed location or the alternative locations. He suggested a requirement that two or three trees are planted to mitigate the removed tree and the slope is stabilized with some type of anchoring material. He agreed the second tree would be impacted by the removal of the first tree because most of its anchor roots were on its uphill side. He also wondered if the garage could be located closer to the house. Mr. Spitzer explained the garage location had been located in a manner that would meet the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement and allow the applicants to retain the uphill tree. He clarified for Ms. Morales that the applicants had not considered a tandem style garage layout. Mr. Kiersey observed that the application satisfied the conditions of LOC 55.02.080(3)(a. through (c) as explained on pages 3 and 6 of the staff report. He noted the staff had City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 8 Minutes of May 1, 2000 determined the removal would have a negative impact on the site, while one Code criterion was whether the removal would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. He also noted the applicant planned to mitigate the removal by planting more trees, which would benefit the neighborhood. Mr. Kiersey moved for approval of LU 00-0037, subject to the conditions in the staff report, and submission of a landscape plan that showed mitigation of the tree with a minimum of two new trees. Mr. Powers seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Powers, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Binkley was not present. There were no votes against. Ms. Morales announced the final vote on LU 00-0037 Findings, Conclusions and Order would take place on May 15, 2000. VI. GENERAL PLANNING None. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Morales adjourned the meeting at 8:35 PM. Respectfully submitted. Janice Bader Senior Secretary 1:\dre\minutes\05-01-OO.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 8 Minutes of May 1, 2000