Loading...
Approved Minutes - 1992-02-03 • ���� 4 4� rail LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING IC EPT FILES AR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES d • AO rot • .11 ik Okt r y. ! e , r �. �t&t At'1. • qq c 7 0 p ,. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES • f '° 1 T *D ;FEBRIrA , ...... R�Y 3,1992 it I. CALL TO ORDER The beveloprpent Review Bardo nneeti n rig of February 3, 1902 was called to order by Vice-Chairman Stanaway at 7r30 p.m. IL ROLL CALL ,," Board members present were Mr.Sievert,Mr,Stanav lay,Ms. Remy,Mr.Starr and Mr,' Bloomer, Mr.Foster and Mr,Creaves were excused, Also present'were Robert Galante, Senior Planner; Catherine Clark,Associate Planner,Cindy Phillips,Assistant City Attorney and Barbara Anderson,Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms,Remy moved for approval of the AuglisL19,OlnlidinItteSA Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert, Mr, Stanaway,Ms, Remy,Mr, Starr and Mr.Bloomer all voting yes, Due to the lack of ant eligible quorum the blixtimili2,21LIAinttiglit were postponed to the next regularly scheduled meeting. p Due to the lack of an eligible quorum the November �5,.149Y,Mittute8,w+ere postponed to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Starr moved for TM Ms.Remy e./ seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Sievert,Mr. Stanaway, MVMst Remy,Mr, Starr and Mr, Bloomer all voting yes. Mr. Sievert moved for I p of the•1iim iwt!27, 1992 Minnt „, Mr.Starr ,,, seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert,Mr, Stanaway,Mr. Starr and Mr, Bloomer an voting yes, Ms,Remy abstained, i1 IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None.,. , V. PUBLIC BEARING S l2S-79(N.Iod.4-90)/11 ,15- i II,a request bra/Int y Mackenzie for approval of the design of a single family home at 1100 Westward Ho Road xhibits 1 -3) The.subject property is part of a historic site that received approval for partitioning liyy the Board on July 18, 1991 (Exhibit 4), The site is located at 11()0 Westward Ho Road(" Ptx Lot 6300 of Tax Map 2 I U10B 13), Vice-Cha1mtun Stanaway discussed the hearing procedure and tlnteiittes for testimo ty 14e asked the Board members if there were any ex pate contacts or conflicts of interi st. 410 Heating none,he asked for the staff presentation. BRB Minutes 2/3192 Page IofA 0 c+ e, ✓5, 0 Ms.Clark stated that Exhibit 101 a letter from Patricia Miller supporting the proposal r 0 (" nand Exhibit 11,building and lotcoverage calculations from Hilary Mackenzie were being submitted for the Board to review, She discussed the purpose Of the request and the previous approval, Ms.Clark stated that staff was recommending approval with conditions, She noted that two additional conditions were necessary to address off- o street parking and the conservttton.easement. ,, The Board questioned staff about Condition 3. Ms, Clark explained that more detail was necessary on the garage door in order to break up the broad mass from the street `' level. She noted that staff would like an opportunity to review that detail prior to construction. i� iry Applicant D. R 97201,explained that she was the granddaughter of Richard Sundeleaf, She mentioned that she had done her architectural internship under her grandfather and helped research his work for a book on Portlandarchiteeture ealled"'Frozen Music". Ms,Mackenzie noted that she also lectured on his work at the Governor's conference on historic preservation in 1989. She stated that she was initially contacted by the Peters on the previous proposal and approval. Ms.Mackenzie explained that Mrs,Sim son ,> had hind her to design a home that would be compatible with the surrounding historic homes. She mentioned that the house design was pushed back an additional 20 feet on the lot and rotated in order to preserve the significant views of the Allen House from the street. She discussed the differences between the previous design and the present design, soils stability,topography,setbacks,finished floor elevations,massing, materials,privacy A''nd preserved views from the surrounding houses. Ms Mackenzie, faIndicated that this was a good example of an opportunity to increase the density of an historic site. She noted that by allowing increased density of an historic site the ordinance becomes mote workable for people. The Board nuked Ms.Mackenzie how drainage would be addressed, Ms.Clark explained that the drainage issues were dealt with during the first review and referred the Board to Condition 8 of the Findings,Conclusion'and Order for SIB 25-.79 od.6- 90)/141 15-90(Rovised);;898. The Board questioned Ms.Mackenzie about the entry rind the trellis, Ms Mackenzie explaire i that because of the lot configuration and the,garage placement it was important to visually pull the en .forward. She indicated that she saw the new house as a secondary building to the Inn house and by pulling the entry forward and addinga garden the theme evolved The Board pointed out that the surrounding historic homes all had a strong sense of where the`entry was located and that the'garrage appeared to be the main entry on the new dwelling. Ms. lelackentie indicated that because of the inherent'r,strictions on the site this would be the only choice es to where to locate the ail and She agertoul during d here bspring cudd sut�r►nti the trees around the dwelling The Board asked about the architectural detail for the new dwelling. Ms. Mackenzie groupings and that divided-lights were not used deliberately as to not co ythe Allen House. She discussed the vertical windows and suited that they were u iyngs of vertical windows explained that the point was to bemodem, yet somewhat remit) scent, 4110 1 11 Mlnutt 2t 1 2 , Page `of 4 2j ti ` r, Opponents .11rn Peters,1032 Westward Ho,Lake Oswego,97034 discussed,the location of his 0 historic home(Patton House)and another historic home across the street on Westward Ho. Mr.Peters was concerned that the proposed dwelling was actually closer to the other historic homes than illustrated on Exhibit 2b, He stated that the three historic 'j homes would have visual impacts as a result of the construction of the proposed dwelling. Mr Peters mentioned that the Board had established criteria that the house had to be compatible with the existing historic'homes: He stated that he failed to see where there was compatibility with the proposed dwelling and the three existing historic structures. He concluded that the site was not suitable for building a house because it is extremely steep. Mr,Peters submitted Exhibit 12,a letter in opposition by Mr. and Mrs.Ruddy, A Jim Robertson, 1172 Westward Ho,Lake Oswego,97034 stated that he was concerned about off-street parking, that the side view of the house would be of two-- stories and that the proposed dwelling was too much house for the small rocky point, Mr. Beattie. W w Lek Cl o stated that he hgi,the same concerns as the previous speakers« He submitted Exhibit 13,a letter in opposition to the proposal. Eektittal Ms.M e• explained that the site plan was drawn from an aerial photo supplied by the City and the City lot line map, She noted that it was to scale and accurate; however, fit) she did only draw in the roof tops of the surrounding buildings located on the surrounding sites. She discussed the proposed house stating that it would,be typical P density, scale and style for the neighborhood and that the lower leveliwould be screened by the ridge. Ms.Mackenzie noted that because of the grade change the house.would only appear to be two—stories from the railroad tracks, pA . She explained that there were property line stakes and building footprint stakes on the site and that perhaps some of 11 the concern about the proposed dwelling being too huge had to do with confusion of which stakes were for the footprint Ms. Mackenzie offered to moo`with the neighbors to explain which stakes were which. She noted that there was a 12''Douglas—fir in the i footprint that would have to be removed and a 15"Douglas-fir which had root damage. The Board questioned Ms.Mackenzie about the size of the house. Ms.Mackenzie indicated that it was about 23,041 sq. ft.plus the mlibration The Board noted that there was not much flexibility on the site to relocate the garage, and that the applicant had attempted to lower the.height of the house and maintain the prominent views of the surrounding historical sias, However,the Board was concerned about the lack of a sense of entrance to the house and the appearance of the garage, The Board found that the scale of the house was small only from the street level and that the footprint was rather massive for the site conditions, The Board agreed that the proposed dwelling was not compatible enough with regard to materials and design. Mr.Sievert moved for,denial of SD 25--79( od,6.-90)/11R 1 90 II. Mr. Stanaway 410 seconded the modorrand it passed with Mr. Sloven, Mr.Stanaway,Ms.Remy,and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes, Mr.Starr voted no, DRB Minutes 2/3/92 `� s Page3of4 o t0VI GENERAL PLANNING ` C08 Emergency Tree Cutting Standards Ms. Clark stated that the proposed revisions to the Emergency Tree Cutting Standards were scheduled to go before the Planning Commission on February 24, I992. She explained that the changes were developed by the City Attoniey at Councils direction. She noted that she was the staff coordinator working with the Isatural Resources Commission which had reviewed and endorsed the proposed changes. Ms.Clark pointed out that the changes affected the emergency clause,and added requirements for the topping of`trees,for the review of trees in a Distinctive Natural Area and for the review of trees that have been required to be preserved as part of ra condition of development approval and to require mitigation. t, The Board questioned Ms. Clark about the mitigation clause, Ms. Clark explained that g currently the penalty for violating the Tree Cutting Standards was a$500.00 maximum fine. Ms. Clark pointed out that byaddinga mitigation clause the NRC hoped to further deter violators by requiring mitigation,which would make sure that an equal diameter of tree(s) be replaced for the ones removed. The Board asked Ms Clark about the emergency clause which states that the "....emergency tree cutting permit must be signed bythe City Manager,or in the City Manager's absence,the Acting City Manager or shft supervisor of the Bire or Police Department...". The Board was concerned about who would actually determine if an ' emergency existed, Mr.Galante explained the tree would have to show obvious signs of need for immediate removal or the applicant would be required to provide the funds iiifor the City to hire an expert to determine the status of the tree. Ms. Phillips referred the Board to 3(c),page 8 of 11 which explicitly describes the circumstances. The Board agreed that they were pleased to see the emergency provisions made more explicit, VII. OTHER BUSINESS—Findings,Conclusions and Order None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Board, Vice— Chairman Stanaway adjourned,the meeting at 9:08 p m, \, Respectfully Submitted, Mkt 1461)e1144 --• Barbara Anderson Senior Secretary 0 t DUB!%�itrutes 2/3/92 Page,of 4 se o • • 11 0 t 1. C Ik r;f x it tr a a 11