Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2020-09-09 PMCity of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 9, 2020 Page 1 of 5 14 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes September 9, 2020 The Commissioners convened at 7:00 PM online, via Zoom. Members present: Chair Jeff Shearer, Vice Chair David Poulson, Craig Berardi, Kirk Smith, Mark Silen, and Randy Arthur Members absent: Jason Frankel Staff present: Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Ellen Davis, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Kat Kluge, Administrative Support REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIVITIES Councilor Kohlhoff updated the Development Review Commission (DRC) on the following recent City Council activities: there was a 6:1 vote granting a waiver on a Measure 49 request to build an additional residential structure; an ordinance passed 6:1 to grant construction of temporary outdoor enclosures for restaurants; an initial design was approved to build the pool; it was decided that the DRC will maintain adjudicatory authority over the Historic Resources Ordinances; and the Meadows appeal was denied with a vote of 5:2. Chair Shearer asked if the pool was still being built on the par-3. Councilor Kohlhoff affirmed, adding that there were too many demands on the other pieces of property considered. Councilor Kohlhoff confirmed that the Meadows project was approved with the vote of 5:2. MINUTES July 20, 2020: No corrections were noted. Commissioner Smith moved to approve the Minutes of July 20, 2020, as written. Seconded by Commissioner Arthur and passed 6:0. PUBLIC HEARING AP 20-04 [TR 499-20-02770], a request for Type II permit to remove three trees for landscaping purposes. This site is located at 15564 Village Drive (21E09BD10300). The Staff Coordinator is Jessica Morey-Collins, Associate Planner. Chair Shearer noted that this item has been removed from the agenda. Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager, explained that this hearing had been canceled tonight because the Application was withdrawn by the applicant. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 9, 2020 Page 2 of 5 14 LU 19-0049, a request for a Development Review Permit for a structure accessory to an existing car wash located in the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay. This site is located at 16110 Boones Ferry Road (21E08CB04200). The Staff Coordinator is Ellen Davis, AICP, Associate Planner. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, gave an overview of the public hearing process. Mr. Boone asked DRC members to declare any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases, or financial conflicts of intere st and their business/employment. All DRC members declared they have no ex parte contacts, conflicts of interests, and no biases, other than the noted following. Chair Shearer declared that one of the owners was a fraternity brother of his and is a current physician of a family member, but that does not impact his understanding of this case. Commissioner Silen declared that one of the named owners was a treating physician several years ago. There were no challenges to the Commissioners’ rights to consider the application. Staff Report Ellen Davis, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She noted that Exhibits G-201 to G- 204 were received after the publication of the staff report ; adding that many were in support of the Site Variances but were in opposition to the Design Variances. The site is within the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay (LGVCO). The site consists of two tax lots, but function as one unified site. If the Application moves forward, there is a Condition of Approval (COA) to formalize that unified site status. Currently, there are two carwash structures on this property. A photo was shown of the accessory structure, which has already been built, as it appeared at the end of July. There are six design variances requested with t his Development Review Permit for a 12-foot by 16-foot accessory structure for a car wash business (it has already been constructed and is subject to Code Enforcement at the moment). The variances have been broken up into Site Design Variances and Building Design Variances. The Site Design Variances are: build -to line; minimum building width; and minimum height at street frontage. Staff found that having the accessory structure within 10 feet of the front property line was not feasible. Staff recommends approval of the Site Design Variances. The Building Design Variances are; general architectural style; siding materials; and roof materials. Staff did not find that the narrative provided by the Applicant shows compliance with two of the Criteria. These are: General Design Variance, criterion a.ii (an alternative design will better accomplish the purposes, goals, or objectives of the LGVCO); and LGVCO Design Variance Standards, criterion b . (analysis of alternative designs). Staff recommends approval of the Site Design Variances for the location of the structure, but they cannot currently recommend approval of the Building Design Variances. The Applicant may present additional testimony and materials at this time. She noted that there is a typographical error on page 2 of the staff report (in condition A.1., remove "with one modification" and close the sentence after E-004). If the DRC chooses to approve just the Site Design Variances, she suggests modifying the COAs slightly. If they choose to deny the Application completely, Code Enforcement actions would continue, as the building has already been constructed. Questions of Staff Vice Chair Poulson asked for more explanation of what could be done to repair what is already there, regarding the architectural style. Ms. Davis replied that, currently, the structure does not City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 9, 2020 Page 3 of 5 14 appear to reflect any of the architectural styles permitted in the LGVCO zone (i.e., Italianate, Chicago School, Cape Cod, or a few others). This would require a major modification of the structure to bring it into compliance. Also, the siding and roof materials are prohibited materials in this overlay district. In answer to Vice Chair Poulson's next question, Ms. Davis indicated that there may be some creative design solution that would not involve tearing down every wall; rather, would focus on the exterior materials and windows. Vice Chair Poulson inquired whether the glazing or fenestration standards were currently met. Ms. Davis responded that she did not believe they were non-compliant if those were actual requirements. Commissioner Berardi thanked Ms. Davis for her presentation. He asked if other buildings in the area complied with the architectural style. Ms. Davis noted that the other existing site structures were constructed prior to the adoption of the LGVCO standards, and all are flat-roofed and have awnings. Ms. Numanoglu added that there are many buildings within the LGVCO that do not meet the overlay standards, and these are allowed to remain because they are legally non - conforming; however, the code is very clear that any new buildings are to comply with the LGVCO design standards. Commissioner Berardi agreed that the applicant should have followed the code. He noted that his concern was whether the building being different would be an issue. He asked what steps would be taken with Code Enforcement if the application was denied. Ms. Davis replied that this would require removal of the entire structure. If the Site Design variances were approved, the Applicant could come back with a building design that better meets the requirements of the zone, in that same location. Ms. Davis informed members that this structure did not receive a building permit when it was constructed, and so would need to meet Building codes. Chair Shearer requested confirmation that the structure would still need to go through the Building Permit process if members allowed it to stay. Ms. Davis affirmed, adding that the permitting would be retroactive and would need to comply with the current standards, including the requirement for the submission of the building plans used for construction (those should be similar to those already rece ived), the notice for development restrictions in order to formalize the unified site, complete the siding and roofing painting as proposed, and be subject to final inspection. Mr. Boone informed members that the Applicant has three choices: show that this design meets the variance criteria; to have a compliant design; or to put forth an alternative design that shows compliance of the criteria. He noted that the Code Enforcement options are not before the DRC tonight. Commissioner Smith questioned how members could approve the Design variance s when the roof and wall materials were prohibited in the overlay. Ms. Davis indicated that members could find that General Design Variance, criterion a.ii (this alternative design will better accomplish the purposes, goals, or objectives of the LGVCO) and LGVCO Design Variance Standards, criterion b. (analysis of alternative designs) are met, and that there are not alternative designs that would be better or available or practicable. Commissioner Smith again noted that his concern was regarding the prohibited materials used. Ms. Davis stated that if the criteria of the Variance was found to be met through the use of these prohibited materials, members could approve the Variance. Mr. Boone added that they would need to see some sort of extraordinary design, using prohibited materials, to better meet the goals, objectives, and purposes of the District, and it would be up to the Applicant to make this argument. Applicant Testimony Victor Lopes, Owner of 3D Design Northwest, indicated that he is stepping into this in a Code Enforcement situation and is having to, retroactively, develop designs that meet the criteria. They focused on depicting the minimalization of the impact that the building had. He acknowledged that the materials used do not meet the standards. The Applicants are willing to City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 9, 2020 Page 4 of 5 14 modify the building to meet the architectural style and criteria, changing out the siding and roofing as necessary, without having to tear down the entire structure. They are looking for an expeditious route that will not be an enormous financial burden to make the building acceptable. Questions of Applicant Commissioner Silen asked for an explanation of the proposal, as he expected to hear that tonight. Mr. Lopes replied that he was not able to access a design to share on the screen but explained that the modification to the roof would be the best way to become compliant with the architectural style. They would also remove the prohibited HardiePlank siding. The Applicant would like to keep the building (as it has a dedicated purpose for the employees) and do whatever is necessary, within reason, to make it comply architecturally. Commissioner Smith inquired what Mr. Lopes' roll has been, and whether he was the one that built the building or not. Mr. Lopes stated that he did not build the structure, but walked into it after Code Enforcement became involved; adding that the Applicant did not have a strong understanding of how much "red tape" was going to be involved in coming up with a c ompliant structure. Mr. Lopes Indicated that he supplied alternative designs for submission and the 12 - page variance application on their behalf. Commissioner Smith then asked who built th e structure. Mr. Lopes replied that various contractors assisted on -site, and that he did not know if a general contractor was involved. He stated that he believed that the Applicant made a good - faith effort to see if a permit was required, but that they had neglected to mention the area where it would be built. Commissioner Smith noted that he has never heard of a 200 square -foot building being approved without a permit. Mr. Lopes replied that a "shed" of this size is permitted to be built on residential property, as long as it does not have electrical or plumbing. He acknowledged that there was some ignorance involved and a general belief that what sounded good and right would be enough to comply. Ms. Numanoglu confirmed that residential structures that are 200 square feet and less than 10 feet in height, without electrical or plumbing, do not require a permit; however, in a commercial application the structure would need to be under 120 square feet without requiring a permit. Ms. Davis added that a permit was also required because the structure was intended for human occupancy. Commissioner Smith asked if this structure has any electrical or plumbing. Mr. Lopes responded that he believed there was electrical but no plumbing. Prior to Mr. Boone directing the DRC to deliberate, Ms. Numanoglu outlined the following options for the Applicant: ask for a continuance of the application until October or November in order to modify the design to comply with the criteria (either the full LGCVO standards or the Design standards); or appeal the application if it is denied tonight. Mr. Lopes asked if he would need to indicate his preference now. Ms. Davis affirmed; adding that the City would be looking for the plans on the proposed modification of the structure to better meet the criteria. Mr. Lopes inquired whether the Site portion would be okay in a partial decision if the architectural side is modified or would it be tied together in a continuance. Ms. Numanoglu replied that the Site Design Variances has been recommended for approval by staff and it would remain as part of the Application, and Mr. Lopes would be addressing the design portion. Mr. Boone explained that this Application was for six Variances and any continuation would involve all six. Mr. Lopes requested a continuance and noted that they would provide an alternate architectural style and materials. Chair Shearer asked if he was requesting a date-certain. Mr. Lopes affirmed; asking for the first week of November. Ms. Numanoglu informed Chair Shearer that staff would need time to review the new material, issue a revised report, and provide 20 days’ notice prior to the hearing. She indicated that there would be no consequence for picking a date -certain, but they would not want City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 9, 2020 Page 5 of 5 14 to leave it open-ended. They could have up to three months later, if needed. Mr. Lopes requested at least 30 days to submit the new proposal. Mr. Boone offered January 1, 2021 as the final submission date. Ms. Davis explained that they are looking at the 120 -day state-mandated date of November 7, 2020. Mr. Boone stated that the 120 days would be extended by the amount of the continuance. Ms. Numanoglu suggested November 2, 2020 or November 16, 2020. Mr. Lopes requested November 16, 2020. Decision Commissioner Arthur moved to continue Public Hearing LU 19-0049 to November 16, 2020. Seconded by Commissioner Silen and passed 6:0. OTHER BUSINESS Schedule Review and Management Update Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager, updated DRC members on upcoming meetings: September 21, 2020 has a rescheduled public hearing on a tree appeal. October has nothing on the calendar at this point. November 16, 2020 will have the continuation of LU 19-0049. ADJOURNMENT Chair Shearer adjourned the meeting at 7:59 PM. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kat Kluge Administrative Support