Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2006-06-19 (02)  City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes June 19, 2006   CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of June 19, 2006, to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 “A” Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. ROLL CALL Commissioners present besides Chair Tierney were Vice Chair Sheila Ostly, Bob Needham and Halliday Meisburger. Commissioners Nan Binkley and Krytsyna Stadnik were excused. Staff present included Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Jessica Sarver, Associate Planner, Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (None) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 05-0074, a request by Vince & Lisa Lowenberg Ms. Ostly moved to approve LU 05-0074-1611, Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. PUBLIC HEARING LU 06-0016, a request by Lynford Capital Management, for approval of the following in order to construct a zero lot line dwelling on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot in the R-2 zone. A minor partition to divide the site into two parcels. Parcel 1 would be 3,137 sq. ft. and parcel 2 would be 2,862 square feet. A Development Review Permit to construct a zero lot line dwelling (two units) with the following components: An exception to LOC 50.65.030(3)(a), which requires that masonry be used as the predominant building material for walls on the ground floor. Residential Infill Design Review approval for the following exceptions to the R-2 zone requirements: Reduce the front yard setback for both parcels along C Avenue from 10 feet to four feet for front porches. Reduce the 10-foot front yard setbacks (C Avenue) to the front building line on parcel 1 from 10 feet to nine feet, and from 10 feet to 7 feet on Parcel 2; Reduce the rear setback from 10 feet to seven feet for both parcels; and Allow an additional 2.4% lot coverage (74 additional square feet) on Parcel 1 to increase the maximum lot coverage from 55% to 57.4%. Removal of three trees. Location of the Property: 596 5th Street (Tax Lot 2800 of Tax Map 2 1E 3DC). 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. All of the Commissioenrs present indicated they were familiar with the site and Chair Tierney declared that he had visited the site. They all declared their business or profession: Ms. Ostly (real estate appraiser), Mr. Meisburger (architect), Mr. Needham (lawyer) and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business). When invited by the Chair, no one present challenged any Commissioner’s right to hear the application. Jessica Sarver, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She pointed out that the site was an R-2 zoned corner lot across from the R-6 zone, and it was within the Downtown Redevelopment District. She said the applicant proposed to partition the site and develop two zero lot line (common wall) units that would each be on their own lot, so they could be sold separately. She advised that zero lot line development was permitted in the R-2 zone. She advised a duplex on one lot would meet setback and lot coverage requirements, but the partitioned lots did not, so the applicant was asking for exceptions to the R-2 zone standards. She advised that the site was also subject to Downtown Redevelopment District Design standards, but it was so close to the R-6 zone that the applicant was asking for exceptions to the Design District standard that called for use of masonry on the ground floor in order to make their development relate better to R-6 development. She said the Design District allowed such exceptions if the design was complementary to the surrounding area. She said the applicant had submitted photographs of all surrounding dwellings within 200 feet of the site to demonstrate they featured varied, but “traditional” character, and none of them featured masonry predominantly on the ground floor. She reported that staff found the proposed design met the DRDD exceptions criteria. She reported that the exceptions to R-2 zoning standards could be granted if the applicant showed that was equal to or better than the result of that could be constructed strictly according to the standards, and that the result would relate better to the street and the neighbors. She advised that in making their decision, the Commission was allowed to consider the pattern and character of development within 200 feet of the site. She said the zoning exceptions would reduce the front setback to accommodate porches, reduce the rear setback, and reduce the percentage of lot coverage. She advised the First Addition Neighborhood (FAN) Plan encouraged owner occupied housing and garage access via alleyways; it called for a variety of housing types and provided that adjacent higher density housing was not to adversely affect single-family development. She said the proposed front elevation would be buffered by an unimproved right-of-way and it would meet FAN’s goal to maintain rural street character because it preserved existing trees and did not improve C Avenue, except to install two graveled parking spaces that FAN asked for. She noted that staff had also considered Residential Infill Design (RID) criteria and found the proposal would result in a structure that met or was better than what the standards of the R-2 zone allowed. She recommended approval of the application, subject to the conditions recommended by staff. During the questioning period, Ms. Sarver clarified that if the applicant had proposed a duplex on one lot, they would still need an exception to the C Avenue setback, and the setback of a small projection off the rear yard of the west unit. She reported that she had investigated complaints related to notice and had found notice had been mailed both to the post office box and to the resident of the property of one owner, and that another complainant was not within the 300-foot radius for notice. She pointed out that the applicant had certified that they had posted proper notice. When Chair Tierney asked what the City was doing to maintain single family housing in FAN, staff related that a Council-appointed task force had just agreed to recommend that all single family homes were to be subject to design review. They explained that the R-2 zone around the site had previously been zoned EC and R-0 until FAN asked for a better transition to the neighborhood. Mr. Boone advised that 2004 Code Amendments applied Infill Standards to “residential dwellings” - not just “single family dwellings.” Mr. Meisburger asked if the FAN Plan actually applied to the site. He also wanted to know why the developer was addressing the adjacent zone, rather than the R-2 zoning of the site. Staff advised the site was within FAN, so besides RID criteria, which considered whether the design was compatible with surrounding structures within a specific distance, FAN design guidelines also applied. Thus, the proposed design had to be compatible with that of nearby R-6 structures and better than what was required in the underlying zone and the adjacent zone. They clarified that the R-2 zone had no density or minimum lot size requirements, but other limitations meant the development could not be four units. They explained the applicant had submitted a revised exhibit that showed less lot coverage after they had removed a previously proposed covered porch. When Mr. Needham asked for evidence that approving the partition would encourage owner occupied units, they acknowledged there was no guarantee, but the units were more likely to be owner occupied if they were on their own lots. Staff referred to written testimony asking that there not be a garage on 5th Street and advised there was no R-2 standard that would prohibit that, and although staff had encouraged the applicant to take access off the alleyway, they agreed the proposed design was a better design because it left a better pedestrian streetscape along C Avenue. Applicant Michael and Sheila Carlson, 444 6th Street, explained that Lynford Capital Management was their family business. They said they wanted the development to fit the neighborhood and they felt partitioning the site into two lots would most likely lead to more owner occupied housing in the neighborhood. They related that almost 60% of the notice mailing list was to renters. Ms. Carlson presented Exhibit E-14 that showed the types of traditional details on other structures in the neighborhood that the new structure would also feature. She said the applicant planned the development after they had consulted an arborist, surveyed the trees, and determined how to save the most significant trees on the site. She pointed out one garage was below grade and accessed via the alleyway and the other, accessed via 5th Street, featured a raised driveway with special tubes underneath that allowed gas exchange that benefited tree roots. She recalled people attending the neighborhood meeting had suggested a wrapped porch, but that could not be done because it required even more lot coverage. She stressed that the applicant was asking for the exceptions to setbacks in order to make the development better and to allow it to have porches and variation in plane along the C Avenue elevation. She noted the applicant was only asking for a small exception to lot coverage. During the questioning period, she discussed the materials board. The Commissioners asked about design articulation on the building. The applicant confirmed one garage elevation still protruded three feet beyond the house in order to avoid tree roots. They clarified one unit was not sitting directly on the earth, but the “standard” distance above it, and the other house was one foot higher than the first. They pointed out the two units had different roof heights and there were several different planes in the front elevation. Commissioner Needham said he liked the porch design, but he wondered why the applicant could not keep the structure within the allowable envelope. The applicant explained they needed a few more square feet for the front porch, and they needed a small change in setbacks to site a zero lot line duplex on a site divided into two lots. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners that the purpose of the RID process was to allow a design that went beyond the zone’s clear and objective standards if it was equal to or better than one that would be allowed under the standards. He noted that when a site was on the edge of its zone, the RID process could help soften the zone’s hard edges and make the site serve as a transition to the neighborhood. He noted the FAN Plan called for an overall single-family look. He cautioned that “hardship” (which was a consideration in a variance request) was not a factor to be considered in this case. Mr. Needham observed the applicant could simply reduce the proposed mass and stay within the required setbacks. The applicant explained they proposed a design that required the exceptions because it was a better, more interesting design. Mr. Carlson commented that they could have proposed one large flat front elevation, or a design similar to that of the buidlng next to the site. He said anything the applicant proposed would be an improvement over the neighboring house. Proponents (None) Opponents Peter Spir, 449 C Avenue, referred to his June 5, 2006, letter to the Commission. He recalled standards that provided the development was to have a good relationship to the street and the neighbors and respect adjacent architecture. He questioned whether the 5th Street elevation, with a snout house type garage, contributed to the pedestrian environment on 5th Street. He encouraged the Commissioners to consider that. Neither for nor Against (None) Rebuttal Ms. Carlson said the applicant were sensitive to the street environment and planned two additional, single-car, landscaped parking spots in the public right-of-way on C Avenue. There were to be three parking spaces per unit. The applicant clarified the units would have 700 sq. ft. basement areas that could be used for storage. Mr. Meisburger noticed the C Avenue second floor of the west unit featured a dormer that looked “unconnected.” The applicant explained it was open to a den room underneath it. When invited, no one came forward to testify regarding this aspect. No one requested that the record be held open to receive additional written evidence or testimony. Chair Tierney closed the public hearing. The applicant waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Deliberations Mr. Needham agreed that the request to reduce the front setback in order to accommodate porches made sense. However, he questioned why applicant in general could not build a sufficiently articulated design within the footprint allowed by the clear and objective standards of the zone, especially in a case where the applicant was only requesting a one-foot exception. Staff advised the R-2 zone was not subject to Residential Infill Design standards, but it was subject to Downtown Redevelopment Design District standards. However, the RID process could be used there to ensure design compatibility, and it would allow a nicer, more compatible design, even if the design did not meet the zone’s standards. Ms. Ostly advised that a small exception could help accommodate good design. She recalled the Commissioners were to consider whether the proposed design was compatible, and no argument related to “hardship” applied in this case. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners to consider whether the proposed design (that did not meet the clear and objective standards of the zone) resulted in an equal or better design than what could be achieved under the zone standards. As an example, he explained that if a “square box” could be constructed under the clear and objective standards, the Commissioners should determine if the proposed design was equal to or better than a square box. Mr. Pishvaie added that the choice of materials was an important factor, also. Mr. Needham agreed the applicant should not be required to apply masonry to the ground floor, but he indicated he questioned why an applicant should be allowed a one-foot exception instead of being required to stay within the allowable footprint. The staff explained the purpose of the RID process was to allow more discretion in design than the variance process in order to achieve good design. Ms. Ostly recalled during her service on the Infill Task Force the group had seen examples of good designs that they liked that did not meet the clear and objective standards. She said they felt it was more important to allow good design. Mr. Meisburger and Ms. Ostly advised that reducing a house by one foot could affect usability of rooms, and reducing more than one setback could mean a very large reduction in the main floor area. Mr. Needham asked why not re-zone the site? Mr. Boone advised RID standards did not apply to the site’s zone, but the RID process could be applied there to determine whether the proposed design that was equal or better than could be built under the underlying zone standards. He clarified for the Commissioners that the proposal was not considered Major Development, and the application was being heard by the Commission under the RID process. The Commissioners then discussed the issue of the garage access and design. Mr. Meisburger recalled the applicant had explained they wanted to avoid impacting a tree. He indicated he was concerned about the design of C Avenue, second floor dormer that did not seem to relate well to the porch roof below it. He suggested the porch design could be modified to deemphasize the garage. Ms. Sarver confirmed that staff had considered asking the applicant to modify a porch and design a smaller, wrapped porch on the front elevation. But she advised that to do that would increase the lot coverage to 57%, which was over the total limit of 55% coverage. Chair Tierney explained that he would be reluctant to add a condition that would expand lot coverage because he recalled the applicant had testified they had considered that design modification, but had been concerned it would result in too much lot coverage. Mr. Boone recalled that the applicant had not asked for that amount of increase in lot coverage, and the legal notice of the hearing had not indicated that, either, but he advised that if the Commission determined a condition was necessary to require the applicant to put on a porch, and that affected lot coverage, and it was a small item that had no major architectural impacts, he believed the Commission had authority to grant the additional coverage. Mr. Needham and Ms. Ostly indicated they could agree to allow additional lot coverage in order to modify the porch design. Mr. Meisburger moved to approve LU 06-0016, subject to the conditions recommended by staff and additional conditions that the porch design was to be as originally submitted in Exhibit E11 with related expansion of lot coverage. Staff was to provide a new exhibit showing the porch design and calculating the related expanded lot coverage in the final order. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and the applicant was asked to comment. Ms. Carlson confirmed that the applicant agreed with the new conditions. The motion passed 4:0. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would be held on July 5, 2006, at 6 p.m. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS The staff confirmed the Lake Grove Village Center planning process was ongoing. ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p. m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader Administrative Support III L\drc\minutes\06-19-06.doc