City of Happy Valley s1

City of Happy Valley Design Review Board Minutes April 28, 2014 Page 1 of 7

City of Happy Valley Design Review Board Minutes Monday, April 28, 2014

Board Members Present: Staff Members Present:

Chair, Higgins Michael Walter, Economic & Board Member, Nelson Community Development Director Board Member, Walton Steve Koper, Associate Planner Board Member, Williams Cheryl Whitehead, Planning Assistant Board Member, Grady

Board Member, Tarnovsky - Absent Board Member, Tiley - Absent

Others Present:

(See attached sign-in sheet)

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Higgins called the meeting to order at 7:18 p.m. Roll call was taken

I. CITIZEN COMMENT

II. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

III. APP-02-14 – TRIPLEX – 11851 SE FOREST CREEK COURT The applicant is appealing the approval of application DR-01-14 of a triplex consisting of a two-story building with three individual dwelling units

Chair Higgins read the hearing script in to the record. He asked Board Members for any Declarations of Exparte Contact, Bias or Conflict of Interest.

Chair Higgins asked the audience if there are any challenges to any Board Members Exparte Contact, Bias or Conflict of Interest.

Steve Koper, Associate Planner, gave the following staff report:  Introduced himself to the board City of Happy Valley Design Review Board Minutes April 28, 2014 Page 2 of 7

 This is an appeal of DR-01-14 minor design of a triplex  There are several grounds for appeal by the applicant which staff addressed in the staff report with no issues on the findings  A single family home is not a permitted use for this site  The density table shows how staff defined the density  The final site plan shows that they have met the setback requirements  The property does not contain 1000sf of contiguous slopes  Staff visited the site and it shows the NW corner of the property is a paved driveway from the abutting property which is roughly 10-15ft wide which creates some unnatural slopes but the remaining 80ft of the property depth would need a slope continuing of about 12.5 feet which doesn’t show this on the site or site plan  Agree that the property to the west has created a man-made drop off but it is within 2ft  Staff recommends denial of the appeal application and to uphold the original approval  Commissioner Grady asked what is the exact slope on the existing site o It drops roughly 10ft from the east of Forest Creek Ct o The average grade of the entire site is about 10% o The fire district requirement is less than 15%  Discussed the drop off between the properties – appears to be a non-natural cut from the neighboring home  The adjacent accessory structure is about 5ft from the property line  The front yard setback is 10ft  Commissioner Grady stated that the SFA zoning for the rear lot is 15ft but the site plan shows 10ft o There are exceptions for patios that can be within 10ft but the structure is 15ft o All the setback requirements have been met  No additional correspondence have been received

Chris Creen City Attorney BEH

Mr. Creen made the following comments:  It was asked what authority and criteria does the DRB have on this application  The DRB needs to look at the code criteria, facts and any evidence and then decide if the criteria has been met  Can approve, deny or add conditions – if the site plan as proposed doesn’t meet the criteria then the DRB can impose conditions to allow it to meet the criteria – cannot go outside of the criteria  This was a Type 2 staff decision – if the decision is objected then it comes to the DRB  Commissioner Williams stated that this issue seems like a planning and zoning issue  Mr. Creen stated that the question is does it meet the design review criteria – staff says it does now it is up to the DRB to decide if it does indeed meet the design review criteria

James Phillips 11800 SE Timber Valley Dr. Clackamas, OR 97086

Mr. Phillips made the following comments:  Sent an email to staff on Friday but it was too late to include it in the packet City of Happy Valley Design Review Board Minutes April 28, 2014 Page 3 of 7

 16.62.030.O.3d.3e interprets that the neighborhood is part of the neighborhood criteria and this shouldn’t be built  There are no triplexes within the neighborhood and this design doesn’t fit within the area  The county stated that there are 3-4 duplexes in the area but they are in the county limits  The nearest duplex is on 122nd – this property is half the size of the triplex site  Discussed the number of bedrooms and bathrooms for both the duplex and triplex and compared them to one another  There are 4 times more bedrooms for the triplex compared to the duplex but the triplex site is half the size  The duplex site has more parking available – the triplex site will have to park on the cul-de-sac  The triplex violates the Code 16.62.030.O.3.E a desirable interrelationship with the buildings in a neighborhood  There are no backyards only a 5x10 concrete slab  There are no front yards  Introduced a map into the record showing the area in orange is 20% and greater for density calculations  Discussed the slopes criteria from the city – this matches the definition of transitional slope area o Staff stated that this is not an adopted study within the criteria code of the city – site review trumps any other study o Mr. Phillips stated that it does match the transitional slope and it requires that the density calculations be redone using the county map o Submitted calculations done by the applicant and steep slope map into the record o If using the calculations submitted by the applicant the site is restricted to two units per acre o Mr. Walter stated that this doesn’t have anything to do with the decision. Mr. Phillips doesn’t want a triplex there but that the steep slopes do not apply as a factor in the decision  Mr. Phillips stated that the steep slopes do apply but that this was entered after the staff report was completed  Don’t show that any measurements of the property were taken – this can’t be determined with pictures or in person without the tools necessary  Staff observed the slopes but didn’t think that it applied  Mr. Koper stated that the code doesn’t say the SSDO applies to contiguous slope no matter how small  This argument was not in the staff report because it wasn’t confirmed – the SSDO does apply it just wasn’t put into the original appeal  If you read the slope code a triplex cannot be built only a duplex can be  There are several items that are not in the appeal application o Parking will spill over into the cul-de-sac which is used for a school bus turnaround o The added wear and tear of traffic will erode down Timber Valley Dr. o Traffic will increase by 75% on Shady Meadow Ct o The vegetation is down to 20% remaining with no water runoff determination by the city o There is no grading permit o There is no tree removal plan showing the location and species of trees over 6in in diameter to be removed o There is not a survey of the property by a professional land surveyor o A traffic study should be required – when the zoning was changed a traffic impact analysis wasn’t done so it should be completed now

Public testimony opened at 8:20pm City of Happy Valley Design Review Board Minutes April 28, 2014 Page 4 of 7

Dan Opoka 12042 SE Timber Valley Dr. Clackamas, OR 97086

Mr. Opoka made the following comments:  Have attended other meetings  Is here tonight to be a part of the community  Rental properties don’t seem to have the same pride in the home as property owners  Seems it's an oversight getting away from single family homes – this is putting our homes in jeopardy  There used to be sidewalks, now we are looking at a wall and a triplex  This site used to have a beautiful home and was an awesome site to look at  Now young people will be hanging out in the cul-de-sac with no yards to play in  What will happen to the surrounding homes – it is not desirable to live here  What happened to the single family home that used to be on this site – a home will fit on this site  This is not cohesive for the neighborhood  Traffic is bad now and it will only get worse  Please don’t allow parking in the cul-de-sac  Mr. Koper stated that the triplex allows for more parking than a single family home  If this is passed it will cause a lot of rift in the whole area but if it is passed then please put in a duplex  I am a little frustrated over this whole thing

Chair Higgins stated that a four minute time limit will be set on the testimony and that it needs to be kept to the criteria.

Sam Ngan 12600 SE Shady Meadow Ct Happy Valley, OR 97086

Mr. Ngan made the following comments:  This site is too small for a triplex  It will be overcrowded on the site and drain the resources, like our schools  It will reduce our property value

Catherine Green 11911 SE Timber Valley DR Clackamas, OR 97086

Ms. Green made the following comments:  Is confused about the criteria  Asked the DRB to reconsider the approval of the triplex  This site is more in line for a single family home  There are no triplexes in the city  This would be better suited along Sunnyside Rd  The duplex on 122nd has a lot of cars parked there  We take pride in our neighborhood and a triplex serves a transient population City of Happy Valley Design Review Board Minutes April 28, 2014 Page 5 of 7

Charlie Hopkins 11750 SE Timber Valley Dr. Clackamas, OR 97086

Mr. Hopkins made the following comments:  Oppose this application  The traffic issue hasn’t been discussed  The triplex is overbuilt for the site  It doesn’t fit into the neighborhood  Hope that the DRB will consider the neighbors

Martha Waldemar 13900 SE Renoir Ct Clackamas, OR 97015

Ms. Waldemar made the following comments:  Is the chair of the Sunnyside CPO  This site was originally in the CPO and the remaining undeveloped sites are still located in the CPO  This is a mixed area with some homes in the city and some in the county  There are three garages on the site plan and one of them is for a compact car  The three parking spaces show that one is standard and two are compact – this is because that is the only way this design will fit  Why can’t it be a duplex – it would make the neighborhood happy and the residents living in the triplex would have more room – like to see that this is strongly considered  Have noticed that Happy Valley has a tendency to ignore how decision made affect the rest of the area – like to see more consideration  If you lived there you would feel the same as these residents  Density isn’t the greatest thing unless it is a large property  People bought into this residential area where they thought it would be single family and they have been hit hard

No in favor testimony.

No neutral testimony.

Steve Koper made the following comments:  The findings made are in the staff report  Code 16.62.030.O.3.D doesn’t specify it applies to offsite properties. If you read it with Code 16.62.030.O.3.E they are a reference to on site compatibility  Disagree with Mr. Phillips reading of the code – the minimum setbacks have been met  Steep Slopes o Did not go out and measure it but logic states that the parcel drops off 8ft in a short distance it is not an area of slopes over 1000sf o Mr. Phillips is using data that hasn’t changed within the last 10 years o Request caution using Mr. Phillips data, it is not accurate o Per the code, site specific observation trumps general studies from a decade ago City of Happy Valley Design Review Board Minutes April 28, 2014 Page 6 of 7

o There is a steep drop off but that doesn’t contribute to the property not being buildable

 Density o If the parcel has less than 3000sf then it can be buildable – the code would not allow the entire area to be buildable yet require a reduction in density Michael Walter, made the following comments:  The comments directed to the DRB regarding parking and traffic should be addressed by the board  Don’t agree with the steep slopes analysis by Mr. Phillips  Staff understands the situation with the neighborhood but the zoning is designed for this type of use  It is not up to the DRB to decide what can or cannot be built on the site  Chris Creen stated that the DRB needs to look at the zoning and define if the use is allowed then review the design criteria

The following comments were made:  Board Member Nelson asked if there is an ordinance for off street parking o No, this is regulated through the Code Enforcement Division  When are streets defined “no parking” o It is defined by the width and street design at the time the roads are built  The cul-de-sac does not have any restrictions  Board member Grady stated the following: o A lot of the issues brought forward are in regard to the zoning which the DRB does not have any regulation over o The DRB can only deal with what is allowed in design review such as setbacks etc. o The SFA zoning does not allow for a single family home o If the applicant wishes to pursue this issue then it needs to be appealed to the City Council  Board Member Nelson stated that there isn’t a lot for the DRB to review for this appeal  Board Member Grady asked if the two compact parking spots on the site were changed to standard parking would that change the plan from a triplex to a duplex o Steve Koper stated that the code allows certain criteria for this and it was met so not sure if there is any basis for a condition like this  No additional questions or testimony required from the board

Chair Higgins continued reading the hearing script into the record.

Chair Higgins asked the applicant if they would like to waive the seven (7) days allowed to include additional data to the Design Review Board.

The applicant does wish to waive the seven (7) days.

Public testimony closed at 8:57pm

Board Member Grady made a motion that the parking requirements be changed from compact to standard for the onsite parking. Board Member Williams seconded the motion.

Discussion:  Board Member Williams asked what the difference between the compact and standard parking measurements are City of Happy Valley Design Review Board Minutes April 28, 2014 Page 7 of 7

o Compact is 18x6 and standard is 18.5x9 o Driveways are 12ft wide for the single car garage and 24ft wide for the main driveway  Board Member Nelson asked what this change will accomplish - If thinking that this will push the design to a duplex – the 2ft difference could probably be made to work within the design, so it really won’t change anything

Chair Higgins called for the question.

Roll Call Vote: Ayes none. Nay from Higgins, Nelson, Walton, Grady and Williams. The motion was denied with a unanimous vote.

The following comments were made:  Board Member Nelson is in favor to not approve the appeal thinking it will be appealed to the City Council  Chair Higgins stated that the bus turnaround within the cul-de-sac is an issue but it is outside of the DRB’s decision criteria  Chair Higgins stated that the staff’s decision regarding the steep slopes is legitimate. Staff made an accurate description of the area and that the average slope didn’t make it a hazardous slope

Board Member Walton made a motion to deny APP-02-14 – Triplex, 11851 SE Forest Creek Ct and affirm the Staff’s decision. Board Member Nelson seconded the motion.

Roll Call Vote: Ayes from Board Members Higgins, Nelson, Walton, Grady & Williams. The motion was passed with a unanimous vote.

IV. BOARD MEMBERS CONCERNS AND COMMENTS

V. ADJOURNMENT

Board Member Nelson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Board Member Walton seconded the motion.

Roll Call Vote: Ayes from Board Members Higgins, Nelson, Walton, Grady and Williams. The motion was passed with a unanimous vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:10p.m.

Prepared and submitted by:

Cheryl Whitehead Planning Assistant

These minutes were approved at the July 21, 2014 Design Review Board.