Approved Minutes - 1975-08-13 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD August 13,_ 1975
... STUDY SESSION
411
A study session of the Design Review Board for Lake Oswego was
held in City Hall on August 13 1975 at 7 :30 p.m. Chairman Mitchell
called the meeting to order and all members were present with the
exception of Tony Marquis Staff was represented by Pat Barnum,
Marlin DeHaas and Jim Cox.
The minutes of the July 30 1975 meeting were approved as mailed,
The four points of hardship applying to a variance wore the subject
f this study session
DJ°µ`. Don Puderbaugh felt the words "exceptional and extraordinary"
z. point no, 1 should be modified to state "special and unusual".
He also recommended the striking of the words "or vicinity" in
,points no. 1 and 24
Mr. TCirk Nielarid felt that staff recommendations should be heard
prior to the changing of context or wording.
M . Pat Barnum felt that changes could be made as long as legal re
.:.µzrements are met and some latitude could be allowed regarding
approval conditioned upon aesthetics, more than is allowed at the
resent time. He felt that modification could allow heavier re-
411 .liance upon aesthetic conditions which would make a variance fit
n. with the conditions of the neighborhood.
lwr, DeHaas stated he was satisfied with the four points as they
resently read and said if control was not kept in those areas
Whatever conditions set will make it difficult for the Department
o:r Public Works.
S4'..r.. .Hugh Mitchell said he believed that using the word "aesthetics"
7rculd result in such a legislative hassle that the city would have
a hard time backing up either an approval or denial.
'fir. Jim Cox said that the variance requirements must be done with
s~ me concrete outlines in the ordinance to indicate which factors
le decision vas based upon. He continued that there would be the
possibility of including aesthetic values as one of the factors
==on which such a decision would be based. }
Kr. Cox also told the Board thatLOC 50.520 could be repealed and
L C, 50.510 could be relied upon, but that it should say more than
►",:.ndue and unnecessary hardship".
Xr.. Robert Stark suggested removal of all four points but keep in
'nd the best interests of the surrounding properties.
Amk L-.. Barnum commented that on the basis of the testimony by the Board
Isp members, there could be a possibility of eliminating the four points
Design Review Board - 2 - August 13, 1975
Study Session
50.520) . Be suggested that point no. 4 be embodied within 50. 510 lib
"The variance requested shall be the minimum variance from the
provisions and standards of this ordinance which will alleviate the
hardship. ") Be continued that 50. 510 should also indicate that the
Board would not only have the authority but a duty to look very
carefully at the conditions it feels necessary above and beyond
those which are requested, to see that the particular variance being
granted would not be detrimental to the neighborhood by that addi
tion of such conditions.
Mr. Stark told the Board he would like to see more flexibility.
r. Nieland said that because all Board members oxpreelled a desire
ifo eliminate the rigid requirements as they ;now stand, (-tome direc-
tion has been giver regarding the rewriting of the variance require-
cents. He suggested that each Board member present written en sug-
gestionsand/or changes and the result would be mutual agreement
between the Board and staff.
Mr. Mitchell felt that "a quality of life" had been written into
the fotir conditions and that design is a very subjective thing.
.'fie Was in agreement with changing the wording in condition no. 1
to ''special and unusual conditions"
Mr. Renner felt that condition no. 3 should connect aesthetic goals
wo surrounding property values. i
:r. Cox said that the present wording is similar in intent when it
states "(,shall; 'be injurious to property in the zone or vicinity".
Mr. Nieland stated that perhaps the wording could be changed to
''. . . adjustment would result in comparatively trivial detriment to
he neighborhood".
2i(tr. Cox said to consider .a strict interpretation of condition no.
the Board will need to apply common sense between what are
trictly minimum and reasonably minimum requirements. He also
said that perhaps 50.520 could be changed to guidelines rather
than rigid requirements.
�.r Mitchell said that Board members could come back to the next
=eeting with rewording of the four points. It is his personal
opinion that these guidelines are needed by both the applicant
and the Board.
Mr. DeHaas said that the Building Division does not encourage
applicants to attempt to get a variance but, does work with them
.o 'meet the Code requirements.
S
Design Review Board - j -
August 13, 5 1
97.
Study Session
111 The Board was informed by ,Mr. Barnum that some variance applica-
tions will have to be reviewed without the design concept; for
example, lot width and lot area variances to allow sale of the
property under consideration as legal building sites.
Mr. Nieland stated that the variance is granted to the property
rather than the individual and this should be explained to the
applicant. He felt that an application .s approved for the prop-
. and not the personal needs of an individual.
mr , Barnum asked that the September meetings be schodu ed so that
-.Ile red .fications to this ordinance could be considered. Be asked
;b t; a deadline ho set for members to forward suggested changes to
~tff in order that all members 'may receive copies prior to the
next meeting,
he September meetings are scheduled for September 10 and 24.
„gt is requested that the revised ordinance suggestions be sent: to
staff no later than September 1 for distribution to all Board
. .embers
Mr. Robert Grangaard (DR 1-75) complained that his delay in having
t.h.1, materials ready for presentation at this meeting was the fault
wf the secretary of the Board in that it took him 12 days to re=
eive the letter containing the conditions and two days to reply.
;Staff noted the letter had been mailed to him on August 5.)
He told the Board that the hedge is being trimmed (no. 6) ; that
the addition of the trees on the north and west sides (no. 7) would
be no problem; the trimmirgof the holly tree would be no problem
but would depend on the trimming height determined by the Depart-
cent of Public Works (no. 8) ; there is no problem with the six-
foot fence height (no. 9) ; the sidewalk agreement had been signed
ono, 10) ; sanitary sewer service has been provided (no. 11) .
Mr. Grangaard told the Board that he did not want to put on the
fascia and banding touches as required in condition no . 2, but
that he had used horizontal siding on the entire building. He
also presented sample siding to the Board showing intended color.
When asked by the Board if the revised building plans were pre-
pared Mr. Grangaard said that they had not but he would be willing
to sign a letter of intent, if that met with the approval of the
B,card
Rather than comply with conditions ,3, 4 and 5 at this time, Mr.
Grangaard said he would prefer to build the building then present I
IIIthe landscape plan. It was the consensus of the Board that the
landscape plan could be presented at a later date, after construc-
tion of the building.
1Ma
,Design P.evi.ew ,Board - 4 .August 1 , 1975
Study Session 111
Mr. Barnum told the Board that the Code requires a landscape plan
showing types, sizes and locations of all plant materials, although
the .Board has the right to waive that requirement. He said, how-
ever, that if that decision is made, some direction must be given
to staff as to the authority to issue a building permit based on
the fact that a landscape plan is unavailable. He £' rt:her stated
that the reason for the plan is to aid the Building Inspector in
determining that the work is done accordaing to a speciflo plan.
Mr. Cox. suggested that possibly the occupancy permit Could be with-
held until the landscape plan bad been submitted for approval. Mr.
ranga.'ard stated that he had not been able to got a building permit
4;ecauso the minutes were incomplete and was told there As a 1,5-day
;r:ppeal period from date of Design Board action which must l.apoa
sefore the permit is issued. Starting of construction prior to
that date is done sunder peril..
r. Barnum then told the Board that in the past permits have boon
ssued on the basis of documented evidence. Ho said that notoa
., changes should be made on the drawings themselves, or en adder-
iu n be attached to the drawings.
. n answer to a question, iv:1. Mitchell was told that oneo, an occu
�ancy permit has been issued there is no legal control Over the
property development.
_., motion was made by Mr. Nieland that the landscape plan he sub-
3 t ted according to the zoning ordinance and approved prior to
issuance of an occupancy permit. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Stark.
Yr. Mitchell said that the Board members should...go back to the
. i to when the building is up, prior to making a decision regard-
sg, landscape plan approval.
M.r. Evans commented that he was against the motion because he felt
Khe conditions were already in effect.
4. Grangaard said that with regard to the patio requirement of
▪andition no. 5, he had a tendency to make the patios fit the
..rop.erty and that the two patios on this property may not be the
same size. At the request of the Board Mr. Grangaard stated that
each patio would have a minimum area of 120 square feet with a
.inimum dimension of eight ' feet.
Mr. Puderbaugh moved that the motion be amended to state the color
cf siding will be raffia beige and the color of the roofing is
L, :odium brown; that the fascia and banding touches be omitted from
:;e requirements; that the enlargement of the patios have a mini-
.. = dimension of eight feet and a minimum area of 120 square feet;
and that the applicant be allowed the option of an acceptable
deck or four-inch concrete slab as shown on the first story floor
Design Review Board - 5 - August 13, 1975
Study Session
111
plan. The amendment was seconded by Mr. Evans.
The amendment passed unanimously. The main motion then passed
unanimously.
Mr, Ea num told the Beard that he hoped problems which arose with
this application could be avoided in the future. IIo explained that
there was some difficulty because staff was unaware what was in
the secondary application and whether it met Ithe requirements
stated 4.n the conditions of the original approval. lie felt the
applicant should be instructed to return to staff with the neces-
sary documents prior to presentation before the Board a second
time. At that time a staff report would be prepared stating
whether Or not it was felt that the new exhibits met the require-
ments sot forth by the board, and if not, what would be required
to make At conform.
The board was informed that the Roy Goccks variance request had
boon postponod beoauce there are legal problems involved regarding
the street accost, difficulty.
111 Mr. Stark said he had received a telephone call from Ms. Heidi
McLean, 159 Ladd, expressing concern for the historic Peg Tree,
She felt that the roots are being cut during the construction of
the apartment complex on the site. Mr. Barnum said that a 40
foot square around the tree had been required to protect the
tree, and that perhaps the site should be checked if there is a
claim that the roots are being cut.
Ms� McLean also commented that Mr. McDermott intended to tear down
w
his home to build condominiums and she felt that it is a historical
house which should be saved,
Mr. Barnum told the Board that Mr. McDermott owns the house and sur-
rounding properties and is requesting permission to, change the
zoning from R-7.5 to MR-2 to construct a series of retirement con-
dominiums. Mr. Barnum said that this request is part of the zone
I change and comprehensive plan revisions which are included in the
Old-Town Study currently in the public hearing phase before the
.Planning Commission. Although the property is well suited for
=ulti-family it should be protected by a specific site plan, which
would mean an LMR zone change tying it to a site plan which the
Design Review Board must approve,
Xr; Barnum also told the Board that the series of public hearings
couldlast�, lfrom one e to ' li
three
. months before the Old-Ta�rt7, problem
111
ds resolved. Be also paid that a recommendation of the Old-Town
Study Area would allow construction on R-5 lots as platted without
a variance requirement, but that such construction would require
Design Review Board 6 - August 13, 1975
Study Session
coming before the Design Review Board for approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit, even though it is a single-family
dwelling.
I�lr: Cox commented that a properly drawn ordinance could control
architectural design to the extent of preference in order to pro-
tect the integrity of a specific area.
The meeting adjourned at 10 p.m.
Respectfull' submitted,
� yc�r Kazala, ocre tart'
--Design Review B and
11/