Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2006-06-05 (02)  City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes June 5, 2006   CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Tierney called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. ROLL CALL Members present besides Chair Tierney were Vice Chair Sheila Ostly and Commissioners Nan Binkley, Krystyna Stadnik, Halliday Meisburger and Bob Needham. The staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Jessica Sarver, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support III. MINUTES Ms. Ostly moved to approve the Minutes of March 6, 2006. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Ms. Stadnik abstained. Mr. Meisburger moved to approve the Minutes of March 20, 2006. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Ms. Binkley abstained. Ms. Ostly moved to approve the Minutes of April 3, 2006. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Chair Tierney abstained. Mr. Meisburger moved to approve the Minutes of April 17, 2006. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Ms. Binkley and Ms. Stadnik abstained. Ms. Ostly moved to approve the Minutes of May 1, 2006. Mr. Meisburger seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Ms. Binkley abstained. Ms. Stadnik moved to approve the Minutes of May 15, 2006. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Mr. Meisburger abstained. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 05-0074, a request by Mary Jo Avery and Avamere Lake Oswego Investors, LLC. The Commissioners directed staff to revise the draft findings to also report that they found the vehicles parked in the parking garage would be visible from the public way and caused the building to appear to be on stilts, as if it were in a flood plain. Mr. Needham then moved to approve LU 05-0074, Findings, Conclusions and Order, as revised. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed 6:0 after it was determined that Mr. Meisburger was eligible to vote because he had heard all of the evidence, even though he had not been present during the Commission deliberations at the previous hearing. PUBLIC HEARING LU 05-0074, a request by Vince & Lisa Lowenberg for approval of the following: Delineation of Resource Preservation (RP) district, including wetlands and a stream corridor on the eastern portion of the site, and RP buffer averaging to reduce the 25-foot RP buffer required from the delineated wetland to a minimum of 10 feet, and to increase the RP buffer from the wetland in the northeast area of the site. A minor partition to divide the 5.04-acre site into two parcels. Parcel 1 would be 2.1 acres in size and Parcel 2 would be 2.94 acres. A 9-lot planned development on the 2.1-acre parcel in accordance with Phase III of the Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS) approved on the site [ODPS 1-95 (Mod. 10-97)]. Several minor modifications to ODPS 1-95 (Mod. 10-97) as follows: to reduce the total lots in all four phases from 20 to 16, to change which lots are included in Phase III and IV, to modify the lot sizes of Lots 6-12, modify lot dimensions on Lots 7-12 and setbacks on Lots 10-14 to accommodate the wetland and trees on the lots, to extend the timeline for Phase IV from 2007 to 2012, and to defer dedication of the open space tract until development of Phase IV or by December 31, 2012, whichever comes first. Removal of 16 trees to construct an extension to Lowenberg Terrace and installation of utilities. Location of property: 1150 Greentree Road (Tax Lot 1601 of Tax Map 2 1E 16AB). Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to declare any biases, conflicts of interest, or ex parte contacts (including site visits). Mr. Meisburger (architect) and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business) reported they had visited the site. Ms. Binkley (architect) reported she had visited the site many years ago. Ms. Ostly (real estate appraiser) reported she had appraised two houses on the other side of the street from the site several years ago. Ms. Stadnik reported she was a civil engineer. No one challenged any commissioner’s right to hear the application. Jessica Sarver, Associate Planner, presented the the staff report (dated May 26, 2006). She reported the R-10 zoned site contained an existing single-family house and detached garage and the existing barn would be removed. She pointed out the site’s resources, including Lost Dog Creek and wetlands (Class 2 resources) and numerous trees. She advised the previously approved ODPS and ODPS modification had established the maximum density, zoning and conceptual lot layout, and allowed the Commission to require a reduction in density or a modified site plan in order to protect the resources in future phases. She reported that Phases I and II had been completed, and a future open space tract had been dedicated as a Conservation Easement. She reported the requested ODPS modification would reduce the overall project density, extend the timeline of the last phase and make small adjustments to lot sizes, setbacks and dimensions in order to protect the resources. She discussed the applicable criteria and reported staff found the proposed application complied with all criterion. She said staff agreed with the applicant’s resource specialist that the proposed changes to the RP buffer would meet the provisions allowing buffer averaging because they did not reduce the function and value of the Class 2 resources. She said the changes would actually increase the area of buffer and provide better protection for the creek. She said the proposed changes to lots in the 9-lot PD were in substantial compliance with the previous approval. She said the trees proposed to be removed were all smaller under story trees and the significant trees were preserved. She recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report. During the questioning period, staff clarified that Phase 4 would be configured like a flag lot and its lots would be accessed by a shared access point off Greentree Road. The “pole” location was not yet known, but staff recommended a condition that it was to be increased to 25 feet to meet minimum street frontage requirements. They advised no access spacing requirement would apply because they anticipated that the access point would be shared with an existing roadway. They confirmed that the significant trees in the setback area serving Lots 12 and 13 would be protected by the setback and an arborist was to assure they were protected during construction. They pointed out that the mitigation plan showed mitigation trees in red, and trees to be removed on individual lots would be addressed in separate Tree Removal Permits, where 1:1 mitigation would be required. They advised that mitigation trees on individual lots had to be planted and verified before a final building inspections were issued. They explained the applicant did not want to dedicate the open space tract until a future phase because they planned to stay in their existing home on the large lot until that future phase. Applicant Tom McConnell, Alpha Community Development, 9600 SW Oak, Ste. 230, Portland, Oregon, 97223, testified that the applicant’s modifications would result in a net gain in total lot area and remove the second cul-de-sac. Reconfiguration of the other cul-de-sac would pull the lots further away from the protected resources. He explained that although the applicant was requesting to be allowed to reduce the RP buffer on two lots, they would accomplish much more mitigation on the east side of the site between the wetland and Lost Dog Creek. He said the modified setbacks would preserve 13 large Douglas fir trees. He reported the applicant could agree to the staff-recommended conditions of approval. During the questioning period, staff clarified that it was the applicant’s responsibility to construct the public pathway in Phase IV for both pedestrians and bikes and to City specifications, and the City would evaluate its design with Phase III. Mr. McConnell said the applicant would prefer to install a permeable surface. He explained that the applicants wanted to move dedication of the open s`pace forward in time so they had more years before they partitioned their property, but if they did not do that, the open space had to be dedicated by a specific date. Mirth Walker, WCA Environmental Consultants, 434 NW Sixth Ave., Ste 304, Portland, Oregon, 97209, testified her firm had delineated the wetland according to accepted wetland delineation standards. However, she acknowledged that professionals could disagree about what were “wetlands.” She related her firm had observed that blackberries overwhelmed Lost Dog Creek, and they had never delineated the east bank because there was no proposed development on that side. She pointed out where there was to be enhancement planting. She said that because staff found that the creek was connected to the large wetland, the applicant had placed a buffer around it as well. During the questioning period, she explained that the creek flowed into a large pipe under Greentree Road. There was no other testimony. Chair Tierney closed the public hearing. The applicant waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Deliberations Ms. Binkley and Chair Tierney commented that the applicant had done their “homework.” Ms. Ostly observed the City would benefit from the larger wetlands area, and she said she could agree to the the applicants’ plan to stay in their house and shift the project around a little to allow them to do that. Ms. Stadnik observed that one cul-de-sac was better than two. Mr. Meisburger liked the fact that the modification would save trees. Mr. Needham indicated that he agreed with the other Commissioners. Mr. Needham moved to approve LU 05-0074. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed 5:0 after it was determined that Mr. Meisburger was eligible to vote. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would be held on June 19, 2006. OTHER BUSINESS The Commissioners and staff discussed the future agenda. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader Administrative Support III L:/drc/minutes/06-05-06.doc