Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2006-09-06 (02)  City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes September 6, 2006   CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting to order at 6:30 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, Nan Binkley, Bob Needham, Krytsyna Stadnik and Halliday Meisburger. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Denny Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Paige Goganian, Associate Planner; Jessica Sarver, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support III. MINUTES (None) PUBLIC HEARING LU 06-0007, a request by Ulloa Investments, LLC for the following in order to construct an 8-unit condominium project: A lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 4000 and 4100. A Development Permit for the proposed condominium structure, with the following exceptions pursuant to LOC 50.65.075: An exception to LOC 50.65.030(1), which requires that new buildings be designed in the “Lake Oswego Style” in the EC zone; A reduction of the 25-foot setback required from the west (State St.) property line to 0 feet; A reduction of the 25-foot setback required from the south (Ladd St.) property line to 10 feet; An increase in the allowable height on Tax Lot 4100 from 35 feet (for an EC-zoned property within 120 feet of a lot zoned R-7.5) and from 40 feet (for an EC zoned property when abutting a DD-zoned lot) to a maximum of 46’10”; An increase in the allowable driveway slope from 15% to 16.5% [LOC 50.58.015(3)(b)]; and Reduction in the 20% landscaping requirement to 18% [LOC 50.47.010(2)]. The removal of five trees. The site is located at: 485 State Street and 21 Ladd Street (Tax Lots 4000 and 4100 of Tax Map 21E 10AD). Chair Tierney 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. The only declarations were that Commissioners Binkley and Meisburger reported they had visited the site since the previous hearing. Each Commissioner declared his/her business or occupation as follows: Binkley (architect); Ostly (real estate appraiser); Meisburger (architect); Stadnik (civil engineer); Needham (lawyer); and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business). No one present challenged any commissioner’s right to hear the application. Jessica Sarver, Associate Planner, summarized the applicant’s final written argument (see Staff Memorandum dated August 30, 2006). She said they had reiterated that they complied with the requirements that would allow for the requested exceptions and they had discussed the issues of site access and traffic. Deliberations Mr. Needham wanted to know if the Commission could decide the lot line adjustment. He questioned the authority of the staff to grant that when it changed zoning and impacted the districts next to it. Mr. Boone advised the Code provided that a lot line adjustment was a ministerial decision by staff. He noted staff had found the adjustment met Code criteria for such an adjustment. Ms. Binkley referred to the Lake Oswego Urban Design Plan. She noted it focused mainly on the Downtown area and the north end of the design area. She noted the section that discussed prototypes of high density housing indicated that when it was close to open space (such as George Rogers Park) the City expected mixed use and anticipated a stepping down to the public space. She said she believed the applicant had tried to step the building down to meet the criteria, but the overall project was so big it did not meet the intent of the Plan. She said she did not see a real transition from the corner and she said the combination of parking and residential was not “mixed use.” She said exceptions should be granted when they made the buildings better, but not simply to allow them to be bigger. Ms. Ostly said if a big structure were allowed on the site the economic value of the site would be lost to the City and could not be recaptured. She was concerned about the size of the project, which looked like a “wall” against the residential neighborhood. Mr. Meisburger recalled the applicant had argued that the building’s height made it a “gateway.” He questioned that and advised that a large open space and more subtle design features, such as changes in paving, could be seen as a gateway. He noted the proposed structure would be much larger than the residential complex across the street and it would not match the scale of its surroundings. Chair Tierney recalled he had agreed that Lake Grove buildings should be closer to the street, but the applicants’ building did not look like a “gateway” and the location of the entrance was not obvious. He recalled the Commissioners had observed that Craftsman style was typically not three stories high and the proposed design looked like a ski lodge. He concluded it was not an appropriate design for a gateway. He said he believed the applicant might have been able to justify the proposed height and size if the design were better. Ms. Stadnik said it would have been a better design if the structure stepped down more. She worried that drivers would suddenly be presented with the specter of a tall building. Mr. Needham said he understood why the applicant wanted to be closer to State Street, and he believed a building there of equal or better design than the Code allowed would be acceptable with a lesser setback. However, he did not accept the arguments the applicant and staff used to justify the reduced setback. He said setbacks were useful to avoid conflicts with adjacent uses and a setback was particularly useful against the park on the south elevation. He noted the Old Town Design District plan indicated that park use should not interfere with normal residential uses, and a setback helped accomplish that, but the applicant proposed to bring residential use closer to the park. He said he believed the proposed design was worse than what could be built under the Code. He also observed that the entrance was not as obvious as it should be. He said it would make more sense to propose mixed use with ground floor retail. He said the design did not present a “gateway,” and it was a beautiful building that should be sited somewhere else. Ms. Binkley anticipated that residents of the development would cover and close their windows and the effect from inside and outside would be like looking at a wall. She said the design was part of the reason the structure looked so tall. She advised that it was critical that gateways to the City were appropriately transitioned. Mr. Needham said he could understand the concept of placing higher density development on higher volume streets, but he believed it would make more sense to position smaller condominium units on the corner site. He observed the project would impact the adjacent residential zone. He recalled the Commissioners had been advised they could not decide the lot line adjustment and had to accept it. But he observed that put the EC zone closer to the neighborhood. He said the building was too tall and would look like a “high box” to those viewing it from the park. He acknowledged that the application had to be judged according to the Code in place when it was submitted, but he noted the proposed height against the neighborhood was over the current neighborhood height limit of 28 feet. He said the Commission was not obligated to approve a “high box,” it was an insult to the neighborhood, and he could not accept it. He said applicants should design buildings that complied with the Code and be sensitive to the overall issues of the community, including preserving historical aspects. He said the proposal did not make much sense to him and it was out of character with the neighborhood. Chair Tierney then observed the consensus of the Commissioners was that the exceptions made the building too heavy and it was not in appropriate style. He recalled they felt the applicant had not met the standard that required an alternate design to be equal of better than what the Code would allow. He recalled they believed that granting the exceptions for setbacks and height did not produce a result that was equal or better than what was envisioned by the Urban Design Plan. He recalled they believed the development failed as a “gateway.” Ms. Ostly moved to deny LU 06-0007. Ms. Stadnik seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Chair Tierney announced the vote on the Findings, Conclusions and Order would be held on September 18, 2006. He then announced a short break in the meeting and subsequently reconvened it for the work session. WORK SESSION Lake Grove Village Center (LGVC) Draft Code Amendments The DRC then discussed the August 14, 2006, version of the draft Lake Grove Village Center Code Amendments with members of the Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager and Paige Goganian, Associate Planner. Chair Tierney related that he found parts of the draft Code were difficult to interpret, unclear and did not make sense. Ms. Binkley and Ms. Ostly indicated they found the “substantial remodeling” threshold section problematic where it provided that a 50% or larger increase in the real market value of a structure would trigger compliance with the new Code. They said the value of a property might be mostly its land value, and the existing structure could have very little, or even negative market value, so any change in the building would be a trigger. They worried that would discourage people from remodeling, or even maintaining an existing building. They questioned why market value should be used as a trigger at all. They noted the other trigger in the draft Code was a 50% or larger change in the appearance of any elevation, even the side or rear elevation. Staff explained that if a project were found to qualify as “substantial remodeling,” then it was the remodeled portion (e.g. the front street elevation) that would have to be made to comply with current standards, and not necessarily the entire building. They pointed out the 50% market value criterion was also used in the Flood Plain Standard. They noted that if the threshold were some percentage increase in the combined value of the land and building that would mean the 50% threshold would be an increase of a half-million dollars on a million-dollar parcel. Mr. Meisburger advised staff to consider using the definition and criteria in the 1997 Uniform Building Code. When the Commissioners discussed allowable height, they observed that the requirements for a step back above the second story might result in an unattractive building, like the Sellwood Library. They said perhaps such a design could feature bays, dormers, brackets, that would engage it over the street more, but they recalled that those features and three stories had made the Craftsman Style building in the previous hearing less “Craftsman.” Ms. Ostly advised that there could be a 14-foot high retail floor and two 10-foot high upper floors in a 35-foot high commercial building. The Commissioners observed that the 6-foot fence height limit might not be in the right section of the draft Code. Ms. Binkley recommended that references to illustrations be inserted close to the related text. Ms. Binkley referred to the section that addressed what would allow a building to be over 35 feet tall and she recommended the Code specify a maximum roof pitch and define “Mansard roof” pitch. Ms. Ostly recalled the Infill Development Task Force preferred to see people break up a large, blank wall using features, such as bays, that could go two feet into the setback, rather than putting visually unappealing indentations in the wall. When they examined the section related to standards for buildings greater than three stories, staff explained the two upper stories had to be residential use. The Commissioners advised it would be challenging and expensive to build four stories in 45 feet or less, with a pitched roof, unless two rooms of the upper unit were in the attic. They cautioned that the prohibited “Mansard roof” should be defined and referred to in this section in order to prevent a flat roof. The Commissioners examined Yard Setbacks required in the VTA 1 (transition) area. Staff confirmed that the Planned Development (PD) process was allowed in this area, because it was allowed in all base zones in the City, and it allowed a developer some flexibility as long as the result was equal or better to what could be done under the zone standards. They anticipated that the building forms that were allowable in the VTA would make the area look very similar to the R-7.5 zone. The group discussed whether PDs should be specifically prohibited. Ms. Krebs worried the availability of the PD process could nullify the Committee’s careful work to plan a transition area. However, Mr. Boone advised the PD standards essentially meant that the developer had to maintain the look of the neighborhood. He also advised that if the Planning Commission decided to eliminate the availability of a PD in the Lake Grove Village Center overlay, they would have to justify that by explaining what was unique about the Village Center that a PD could not be allowed there, but was allowed in all other areas of the City. He also noted that the Committee had realized they could not anticipate all situations and added an adjustment process. He said the PD process was a similar type of adjustment process. When the group examined the section listing permitted architectural styles, staff explained this section listed styles the Architectural Subcommittee members liked, but it needed to be supplemented by a “styles handbook” in the near future. Ms. Krebs explained the Subcommittee members knew what they liked, but in order to express that, they referred to a book of architectural styles Mr. Bates had provided to them and then they voted on which styles were appropriate for a transition area. She clarified that the Advisory Committee anticipated the community would redevelop with contemporary versions of the styles, and the list was not intended to create an historic district. Ms. Binkley observed that the area was supposed to become a storefront environment, retail-oriented district, but non-retail uses, such as dental offices, were using that space and covering the Boone Ferry Road-facing windows. She suggested non-retail use be required to have “display windows,” or trellises or window boxes at the windows. The group wondered if the draft Code should address rear entrances (off the parking area) as well a front entrances. Ms. Binkley suggested the Roofs Section not exclude solar panels. Committee members explained that the Committee prohibited several colors of metal roofs that they did not want to see, but they actually did not want to see any roofs of bright, primary colors. The Commissioners wondered if the language could be modified to better reflect that intent. They suggested there be some flexibility for a developer to remove an existing mature, Douglas Fir tree that was in a location on a lot where saving it was not practical. When the Commissioners examined the Adjustments Section, Ms. Krebs said it allowed too much discretion and she held that some standards should not be subject to adjustment. Staff advised that an adjustment related to a single-family house or duplex would be decided by staff, but an adjustment related to a multifamily or commercial development would be heard by the DRC in the design review process. Ms. Krebs stressed that the Committee had worked hard to reach a compromise on allowable building height and lot coverage in the face of residents’ opposition to even the existing zone height limit of 45 feet, but the adjustment would allow those limits to be increased. Mr. Needham opined that the City allowed too many adjustments and developers would begin to design for the adjustments, and every applicant would ask for more than 45 feet. Mr. Egner pointed out that height was a Major Adjustment to be decided by the DRC. The architect Commissioners advised it would be a challenge to build a four-story building under the draft Code. Ms. Jordan said that the “extra story” would work in the District as long as it were placed at the front of the lot and stepped back, did not “loom over” others, and blended well with its surroundings. She said a lot depended upon how it looked to people. But they did not want to see another “Kruse Way,” or “urban canyon” on Boones Ferry Road. Chair Tierney indicated he favored allowing adjustments if the parameters were narrower. Mr. Boone advised the result of a Major Adjustment had to be a better urban design compared to what could be built under the Urban Design Standards. Mr. Meisburger suggested that if there were a limit the community wanted to stay below the Code should be crafted in a manner that ensured that limit was respected. Mr. Needham said he favored allowing less discretion for granting adjustments to standards. Ms. Binkley observed that without some ability to adjust the standards, the District would be an historical district. Ms. Ostly volunteered to represent the DRC when the Planning Commission discussed the draft Code. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS (None) ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 9:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader Administrative Support III L\drc\minutes\09-06-06.doc