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