Approved Minutes - 1981-01-01 Design Review Board Minutes 1981
January 5, 1981
January 19, 1981
February 2, 1981
FebruerY 16, 1981
March 2, 1981
March 16, 1981
April 6, 198
April 20, 1981
May 4, 1981
May 18, 1981
June 15, 1981.
July 6, 1981
July 20, 1981
August 3, 1981
August 17, 1981
September 9, 1981
September 21, 1981
October 5, 1981
October 19, 1981
November 2, 1981
November 16, 1981
December 7, 1981
December 21, 1981
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ME•IG JANUARY 5, 1981 PAGE 1
The Design Review Board meeting of January 5, 1981 was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Ash by Robert Bonney, Vice Chairman. Design Review Board members present were; Gary
lip Rittenhouse, Glenn Chilcote, Robert Bonney, Pam Eldred, Lang Bates aid Joan Renick.
Ken Mueller was absent. Staff members present were: Robert Galante, City Planner;
Alex Arseniev, Assistant City Engineer; and Beverly Coghill , Secretary,
APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 15, 1980 MINUTES
The minutes of December 15, 1980 were approved unanimously, without corrections,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Robert Galante presented a letter to the Board from Caspian Construction' Company,
DR 30-79, requesting extension of one year on construction of their project. Mr.
Galante pointed out that construction has not yet begun on the site so the staff
recommends approval of the extension. A motion was made to cxtund the period for one
year from date of the request, The motion was seconded and pasvred unanimously,.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS, ,
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VAR 48-80 (Robert Randall Co. ) -- A request by the Robert Randall Co, for a varianc,u to
allow the reduction of the 2000 sq. ft. of property/unit requirement to 1044.5 sq, ft,
for existing condominiums located at the northwest corner of Church and Durham Streets
41, (Tax Lots 6600 and 5500 of Tax Map 2 lE LOAD) . Also a variance request to reduce the
lot depth requirement from 100 ft . to 63 ft. and to reduce the required lot area from
5000 sq. ft, to 3933 sq. ft, on the already partitioned portion or Lot 55')').
Robert Galante presented the staff report.
Ms. Eldred asked what the hardship was. Mr. Galante said that if there is a hardship
of a minor degree and if there Is no oppositicr by the community or detrimental impact,
then these variances could be granted•
Mr. Bonney asked about the parking for the single-family residence. Mr. Galante explained
that a parking space from the condominium parking lot is included within the lot lines
of the residence.
Doug Seeley, Robert Randall Co. representative, explained the reason for the particular
parking stall to be deeded to the residence. Ne clarified that a hardship was created
because financing could not be obtained While the single-family structure was a part
of the project.
There was no opposition.
Mr. Rittenhouse moved for approval of the three variances in the request. The motion was
seconded, and passed unanimously.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ME IG JANUARY 5, 1981 III PAGE 2
DR 34-80 (The Robert Randall Co,) -- A request by the Robert Randall Co. for preliminary
Ali and final Design Review approval to allow construction of 108 condominium units on the
IMF 6. 7 acre site located on the south side of Carman Drive (Tax Lot 200 of Tax Maps 2 IC BBB_
and 2 lE SC) ,
Robert Galante presented the staff report, explaining that the bikeway path should bti
iilustrated throughout the plans.
Mr. Bonney asked if the parking ratio conformed to City requirements, and he was told
that it does.
Ms, Henick asked what the problem was with the proposed lighting, and Mr, Galante said
that staff felt it was too intense.
Mr, Rittenhouse expressed concern over the soils report (Ex. U) , and wondered If it
gave a true picture of the problems of rock on the site
Mr. Bonney asked if the building heights conformed to code. Mr. Galante responded that
this Is in a General Commercial Zone, and that the heights were acceptable. Mr. Chilcotr
asked For more review on the access road,
Mr, Arseniev said that the Traffic Engineer would like it to be more than 115 ft, from
the intersection of Fosberg due to the high traffic expected, lie explained the site
problems for this Intersection;
There was further discussion on the intersection of Fosbetg and Carman, with Mr. Arseniev
4111k• explaining that an LID has already been started.
Craig Monaghan of, Evenson, Lund` ren Larson & Partners. Architects, reviewed the seven
conditions of approval in the staff report as follows: 1 Acceptable. (2) The appli-
cant would prefer it as originally presented. (3) Acceptable„. (4) They hope to save
as many trees as possible, and will hire an arborist. (5) This type lighting was
approved for Thunder Vista, and the applicant hopes to retain this lighting plan.
However, they are willln9 to work this out with Staff. (6) and (7) are aceptabie.
Mr. Rittenhouse said the applicant should be aware that some blasting may have to be
done due to the rock, and that when the utilities are put in the number of trees saved
could be considerably different due to this.
Mr. Bates asked why there had to be an additional circulation route for two of the units,
end why a single loop road was not used for this purpose. Mr. Monaghan responded that
a service street was needed for the two units, and the parking ratio required by the
City was also a factor. Mr. Bates asked if the berms ac,. inst the garages were actually
going to be built. Mr. Monaghan clarified that berms would be used wherever there
were no trees.
Ms. Eldred asked If the road could be screened where it abuts the adjacent property.
Linda Potter, Landscape architect, explained that the areas outside the roadway will
be left in its natural state, and that after construction native grasses and plants will
be planted. She agreed that planting can be placed to screen the roadway as asked by
Ms. Eldred, and suggested the use of Oregon Grape. Mr. Galante said a minimum setback
ill should be established by the Board so the planting can be shown on the plan.
Ms, Potter said there will be no underground irrigation for the project.
DESIGN REViEW BOARD ME4110G "JANUARY 5, 1981 • PAGE 3
Glen Gregg, 10415 Terwilliger Place, congratulated the developer on the planned bike
4111 path, but questioned using anything narrower than the 8 ft. width for this purpose.
He questioned whether the bike path could be linked to present bike path, since it
will necessitate crossing property not owned by the developer. Mr. Chilcote suggested
the bike path should be linked to the one going through the Saface property if it is,
feasible.
Ms. Henick said she would like as much separation as possible between the commercial
site and the residential development, and feels that the road should not connect intern-
ally between the two projects. Mr. Galante said the zone change had a condition that
two access roads be made. Mr. Arseniev said the connection between the two projects
was needed for emergency vehicles. Mr. Chilcote suggested that the connection be used
only for emergency vehicles.
Bob Evenson, architect, said the applicant would rather keep the layout for the road
the way it is proposed on the plan
Ms. Renick suggested the roadway connection be used only as an emergency drive. This
can be done with the stipulation that if it is needed at a later date for regular traffic,
the developer can review this need with staff and the Board.
Mr. Monaghan explained the floor plans to the Board.
Mr. Arseniev reminded the developer that they will have to employ a registered engineer
for grading and sewers.
Mr. Bates read Code 50.890, to determine if the request conformed to all requirements.
There was no schedule for the project.
Doug Seely stated that the project will be built in a single phase, and construction
will start as soon as approval is granted and financing is obtained. Construction time
is projected at 180 days.
Mr. Chilcote moved for approval of the request with the following conditions;
1) That the conditions of 2C 3-78 be fulfilled.
2) That the internal circulation be modified to allow emergency access only
between the multi-family and commercial areas and that the entrance be
maintained In its present location with the 24 ft. entrance and a 20 ft.
loop road, as proposed. At .this point Ms. Eldred questioned limiting the
widths of the road since further study might find that enough additional
traffic will be generated to require more width It was agreed to add:
If a study by the traffic engineer shows that a wider road is necessary if
the commercial area is connected In the future then the entrance should
be changed and the loop be widened.
(3) The bikeway loop should be restudied, and the applicant should find out
if the section of the bike path can be constructed on property not owned
by the developer. This item is to be brought back as Unfinished Business,
The path should be 8 ft wide except that the portion through the develop-
ao ment can be designed, particularly with respect to width, to the satisfaction
of staff.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ME•G JANUARY 5, 19111) PAGE 4
(4) Site lighting is to be studied by the City Engineer, and his decision is
0 to come back as Unfinished Business, if necessary.
(5) That drainage systems be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(6) That the utility plan and grading be revised to match the revised site plan,
if there is a change, this item is to be brought back under Unfinished
Business.
(7) An arborist be retained during the construction for tree protection.
(8) A landscaped buffer be installed where the roadway abuts adjacent properly
to the staff' s satisfaction.
(9) A written schedule be submitted for the record.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
TREE CUTTING (Condition 4, above)
Mr. Chilcote moved that item 4 should be reviewed by staff, and when the revised utility
plan 'is presented, the tree cutting request should come back under Unfinished Business.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously
ill GFNERAL PLANNING
Mr. Galante presented two sets of FINDINGS, which were signed by the Vice-Chairman,
Mr. Bonney. They were: VAR 42-80 and DR 31-80.
Mr. Galante informed the Board that the meeting of January 19, 1981 has been cancelled.
The next meeting will be on February 2, 1981 .
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
0.., r,
/*< >11
Beverly E. Coghill r'
Secretary
O
•
•
1
II
I
i
t 1
v.�., ,.._.� y..�_d -....,aa.• a..,,.,a.. ..x w..- .,.,"..,u ».- w v.aewa tr<.a.,.,,at.'14E3aM �.e, �4r�a.,iLkwY ..,er9..A�,. ��.,.. .,..KK.nn ,.,.ti s.y+z,nr..
0 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD did not meet on JANIIARY 19, 1981
y
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 1981 PA(E 1
The Design Review Board meeting of February 2, 1981 was called to order at
7:35 P.m. by Robert Bonney, Vice Chairman, Design Review Board members
present were: Richard Eslick, Joan Henick, Lang Bates, Robert Bonnoy, Shirley
Petrie, Drank, Clarke and Eleda Nishimura Staff members present wore; Robert
Galante, City Planner, Alex Arseniev, Assistant City Engineers Ed ,C.anten,
Assistant City Attorney, Lori, Mastrantonio, City Planner; and Beverly Coghill,
Secretary.
The new members of the Board were introduced along with the new City Planner,
APPROVAL OF JANUARY 5, 1981 MINUTES
The minutes of the January 5, 1981 meeting were approved Unanimously, without
corrections.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Galante read a letter from Jean Hemphill, 841 S.W. Ninth, objecting to the
approval by the Board of the Far West Federal Savings and Loan building located
in the Village Shopping Center on State Street. htr. Galante informed the Board
that this was the third letter received objecting to that structure,
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
411 None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
DR 33-80 (The Robert Randall Co.) To consider a request by the Robert Randall
Co. far final design review approval to allow the conversion of a laundromat to
a bank located at the bake Oswego Village Shopping Center (Tax Lot 5000 of Tax
Map 2 lE 1BAA) .
Robert Galante presented the staff report, stating the applicant has furnished
most of the items asked by staff and had agreed to eliminate the advertising on
the sign.
He presented the revised plans to the Board and pointed out this was a new
exhibit ("g") ,
Frank Clarke excused himself from the board on this request, stating that his
firm has had business dealings with the applicant, and there might be a conflict
of interest.
Mr. Galante presented a letter from the applicant illustrating the amount of
drive-up traffic to be expected (Exhibit H-1) .
Shirley Petrie questioned the adequacy of the drainage and asked that the
applicant respond to the location of the lines.
• Mr. Eslick asked if the applicant can be sure there will be only threc3 cars
staged at one time for the drive-up windows, and whetht�r more than one window
will be in use.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING FEBRUIRY 2, 1981 PAGE 2
Paul Yang, applicant's representative, explained that everything has been sub-
mitted to staf .fMr. Yang said the appliearat agrees substantially with the
staff recommendations. With reference to the drainage, he said they had been
unsuccessful in locating some of the drainage pipes from reviewing the plans on
file at City Nall. With reference to Condition #4, the sign advertising, he
said he would like to make one last appeal for the advertising. Ile: said it wan
very I ritical to the business to have the advertising on the nigh. tie assured th t
Board this would be done with taste.
M . Bates asked if there was a drawing on the proposal for garbage; screening,
Tom Edmonds, Designer, presented the requested drawing to the 6oer.`d.
Ms. Petrie asked what laws applied to advertising on the sign.
Ed Lenten responded that commercial speech is protected by the Pi,rst Amendment of
the Constitution. The fact that it is advertising, alone, is not adequate reason
to prohibit the advertising, Health, safety or other reasons have to be the basis
for ;ruling out the advertising. The content cannot be controlled unless certain
words or phrases that might be considered distracting or hazardous, or if lewd cr
obscene words or phrases, are used.
In answer to questions from the Board regarding the sign, Mr. Yang responded that
it was internally lighted, and 6 ft. 2 in. x 6 ft. in sire, with no computerized
Iwriting to appear. Ms. Petrie felt a sign as proposed would not be obtrusive,
and would not distract the driving public. Mr. Galante suggested the sign be
reviewed by staff, as a condition of approval, for compliance with the sign code
(47.190) and the Design Review Ordinance,
Opposition
None.
Mr. Bates said he agrees with the staff report, and feels the screening of the
garbage area is not in keeping with the rest of the area. He said chain link '
fence with slats is not acceptable, and suggested concrete blocks, or block and
stucco. Mr, Eslick felt the bottom of the sign should be changed from brick to
block and stuccos, to fit in better with the building. Mr. Bates preferred no
advertising on the sign, as he thinks a simple signage: is adequate.
Mr. Bates moved for approval following the conditions as outlined in the staff
report: ##1 as stated; 02 as stated, with additional language asking the applicant
to provide screening of the garbage area with material more compatible with the
building, and Baskin-Robbins, to the satisfaction of staff, 03 as stated; #4 as
stated, with only the. name of the, bank on the sign.
Ms. Henick seconded the motion.
Ms. Petrie said advertising in the unobtrusive way proposed on the sign, should
410 be allowed. Ms. Henick was concerned that if the advertising was allowed, then
it would also have to be permitted on the Lake Grove Bank sign.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING FEBTUARY 2, 1981 PAGE 3
There was an amendment to the motion that Condition 44 be brought back under
Unfinished Business to review the sign lighting, the amount and type of adver-
tising, and whether it meets all City codes to the satisfaction of staff.
The motion as amended passed with all Board members voting "yes", with the
exception of Mr. Clarke, who had removed himself from the hoard
DR 37-80 (Tri-Lee homes) -- To consider a request by Tri-tree Hemel3 for preliminary
and final design review approval to allow construction of a duplex on the south-
west corner of the intersection of Lower Drive and Tualatin Street (Tax Lot 2500
of Tax Map 2 lE 18A13)
Robert Galante presented the Staff report and handed out landscape and elevation
plans.
Mr. Bates asked if the duplex met the aetback requirements, and Mr. Galante
said it did. Mr. Bonney asked what the height limit was and whether the structure
was within that limit. Mr. Galante said the limit is 35 feet or two stor;ieS
and an attic, whichever is less, and that it was within that limit.
Bill Lee, owner ofTri-Lee Homes, explained that the driveway will be paved and
his brother owns the existing house on the lot and plans to change the siding of the
11111 house to match the duplex. He said the trees wore going to be removed because they
I are in poor condition, but they plan to plant new trees. He said the large existing
oak shades the lot adequately. All conditions of the staff report are agreeable to
Mr. Lee. He said that when the site is graded, any exposed concrete will be covered
with siding to match the walls, The drainage plans will be designed to the satis-
faction of the City Engineer. Exhibit 11 shows the existing drainage ditch through
Lot 2700 and the drainage will be delivered to that ditch. Mr. Galante explained
that the extra parking shown is not required parking. 1
Ms. Petrie asked: what colors were planned for the unit. Mr. Leo passed a color
sample to the Board, explaining the product and color to be used (Exhibit "N") .
Opposition
None.
Ms. Petrie moved for approval with all six conditions in the staff report applying.
Mr. Bates asked that a seventh condition be attached requiring a grading plan to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and an eighth condition be attached stating
that site lighting be designed to the satisfaction of staff. There was discussion
on the grading and tree cutting, with consensus of opinion that condition #2 as
stated was sufficient. Mr. Galante said that if there are major changes in this
area, this item can be brought back to the Beard under Unfinished Bus.ness.
411 Ms. Honick seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING FEBRUUARY 2, 1981 PAGE 4
DR 1-81 (Thomas Ammons) -- was withdrawn until February 16, 1981 by the
applicant.
GENERAL PLANNING
Mr. Galante presented the following Findings to be signed by the Vice-Chairman:
DR 35-80, OR 25-77, DR 34-80, VAR 48-eo, DR 26-80, DR 36-80, VAR 47-80 and
DR 45-800
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT'
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:83 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
cltad/4/4.,
BevOrlY Coghill
Secretary
410
}
1
I
1
0
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ,MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 1981 PAGE 1
The Design Review Board meeting of February 16, 1981 was called to order at
7:35 p.m. by Robert Bonney, vice Chairman. Design 'Review Board members preeent
were Richard Eslick, Joan Renick, Lang Bates, Robert Bonney, Shirley Petrie,
Frank Clarke and Bede Nishimura. Staff members present were: Robert Galante,
City Planner;• Alex Arseniev, Assistant City Engineer; and neverl,y Coghill,
Secretary.
APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 2, 1981 MINUTES
The minutes of the February 2, 1981 meeting were approved unanimously, without
corrections.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a
None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Alh VAR 1-81 (J. and Cynthia Campbell) To consider a request from a. and Cynthia
111, Campbell tor a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 2$, to 8+ in order
to add on to the residence at 1128 SW Lake Shore Road (Tax Lot 313 and 314
of Tax Map 2 lD 10BD) .
Robert Galante read a letter from D. L. Gunderson, 916 Lakeshore Boulevard,
Tax Lot 256 and 257 (Exhibit "G") , which expressed concern about the expansion
of the applicant's house. He stated that he would support any stand that Fran
Nelson, the neighbor to the rear, would take (either for or against) on the
request. Mr. Galante then presented the staff report, showing site plans and
explaining the variance requirements to the Board. He said a survey should be
•
required, and that the staff did not feel the height of the house was too
excessive for the neighborhood.
Duncan Campbell, applicant, said that Fran Nelson is a neighbor directly
behind his property, and is in compliance with the request.
Opposition
None.
Ms. Petrie moved for approval of the request. Mr. Bates seconded, adding
the condition that a survey be provided to verify the setbacks'. The motion
passed unanimously.
AlmiiVAR 2-81 (flicks Associated Architects)..- To consider a request by• Hicks
gip Associated Architects for varian:Os to reduce the 20' front yard requirement
to zero feet and to increase the height limit requirement to allow construction
of a 4-story residence and garage located at the West end of Devon Lane
(Tax Lot 6400 of Tax Map 2 lE 15AB)
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 1981 PAGE 2
410„ Mr.Galante presented the staff report, and showed a section of the proposed '
house on the lot,
Mr. Bonney asked if any floor area would be eliminated by reducing the building
by 7 ft. as recommended by staff. Mr. Galante responded that this could happen,
but that the building design has not yet been finalized and that it could be
revised to resolve that problem. Mr., Eslick said he would be more comfortable
in evaluating the request if he could see a design so he could determine whether
it would fit the site as described.
Bob Hicks, applicant, said that before he gees any further, he wants to know
what the options are He explained his desire for a 4 story building is for
utilization of solar collectors on the south side. He does not plan occupancy on
the lower level. He presented a surveyors drawing (Exhibit "r") He said he
will give any easements asked, or anything else of that mature that the Board
Would require.
Mr. Galante said
that site section should hould be Presented to see if the requestedheight will obstruct the property to the rear, and if, in fact, the sun can actually
be collected on this property.
Opposition
Marjorie Cameron, 1140 S. W. Upper Devon Dr. TL 3000, is opposed to the height.
of the building asked for, and feels it should be consistent with other homes
• in the area.
Darwin Isensee, 1130 Devon Lane, TL 3100, plans to build on his lot and his
architect told him to forget solar panels because of the lack of sun. He said
he would not object if the' structure could be kept to 20 ft.
John Rosenfeld, 1141 Devon Lane, TL 6500, is next door to the subject property.
He is concerned with the height of the home, and the location on the lot.
Since there is no plan, presented, he cannot give a good evaluation. lie
questioned whether it was truly a 7500 square foot lot.
Michael Westwood, 1080 Upper Devon, TL 3400, said the height variance is ob-
jectionable to him. He objected to the solar panels, but would not
object to the 20 ft. height recommended by staff.
Rebuttal
Bob Hicks said he does not have the contours, but believes the base of the
house on Lot 3000 is approximately 30 ft above the street, and Lot 3100
would be looking down at 27 ft. , so is not going to take away anyone's view.
He said Lots 6500 and G300 are the ones that will be impacted by his building.
He will review his plans with any of the neighbors when it is formulated.
He would want to incorporate the collector panels into the roof, and will not
build them unless he can do this. He said the survey shows there is a legal
7500 square foot lot.
4110
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING F B VARY 16, 1981 PAGE 3
416 Lois Westwood, 1080 Upper Devon, feels there is not enough sUn for the solar,
panels. She said the houses on the street are not more than 35 ft. in height.
Mr. Hicks said, he had already checked out the use of solar panels, and was
assured that it can be done.
Mr. Bonney said he would like more information and preliminary sketches.
Mr. Bates concurred, stressing the need to know the impact on Other properties
and on the Street.
Mr, Bonney would like a comparison of the use of solar at 27 ft. and at 20 ft.
Ms. Petrie said she did not object to the setbacks or A height of 20 ft. above
the street.
Mr. Eslick liked the plan to close in the lower floor, so' the stilts would not show.
Mr. Hicks said he did not find any objection to the 20 ft. height limitation,
and would work with staff on this.
Ms. [Renick moved for approval of the request with the condition that the height
of the residence not exceed 20 ft. above street level. Recommendations of staff
report apply. If the applicant presents a design other than this, the Board will
have to review it for approval.
411 The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
DR 1-81 (Thomas Ammons) •• To consider a request by Thomas Ammons for pre-
liminary and final design review approval to allow the conversion of a house
to an office building at 480 5th. St. (Tax Lots 7600 and 7800 of Tax Map 2 lE 3DC) .
Mr. Galante presented the staff report.
Mr. Arseniev clarified that it is the City's plan to close B. Avenue between 5th,
and 6th. Street, eventually.
Ms. Petrie asked what the reference to the fence on the west end of the property
meant. Mr. Galante said this was referring to the fence next to the house, which
is just off B. Ave,
Ms. Nishimura asked about the condition of the garage. Mr. Galante replied that
It should be painted or stained to match the house.
Ms. Eslick expressed concern about lack of screening on the east side of the
parking area, and that headlights might be a problem if they shine into traffic
from there. Mr. Galante explained that lights would shine on the Safeway store
across the street and should not be a problem.
Edmond Welsh, 311 B, attorney for the applicant, said all conditions will be
110 met as outlined in the Staff report.
DtS,tGN REVIEW BOARD FEBRUARY 16, 1981 PAGE 4
Henry Voderberg, 543 3rd St. , architect, presented the color board (Ex. E) ,
and existing floor plans and revised drawings (Ex. F) , the survey (G) , and the
revisal of the submitted drawings (Ex. H) ,, He explained that thn chain-link
fence is on the property line, and not 1$" from the line. He said the parking
let can be changed because of this, to 60"6", and that will comply with, the
city standards for parking. This z,ill cut down on the amount of landscaping,
but ground cover and climbing vines can be used, He said they will no longer
have to have designated compact car parking. He presented photos (Ex I) of
the type fenee they planned to use to satisfy Condition #6.
Ms, Petrie said she liked the fence and felt that the back fence should be
replaced as well. Mr. Voderberg said the applicant did intend to replace it
with the same fence he showed in the photos.
Mr._ Voderberg said new gutters and downspouts will be provided, which will drain
into the parking lot and into the catch basin. He said the garage is stable
but not in good condition, and it will be used for storage. The garage will
be roofed as the house. No construction schedule has been provided, but they
will begin as soon as possible,
Opposition
None,
40 Mr. Bates moved for approval with staff conditions applying as follows: 1, 3, 4, 5
(the sign be brought back under Unfinished Business, when the details are pro-
vided, and if there is a change in the proposed sign) , 6 (the fence presented
be installed and extended to replace the existing fence in the back) , 7, 8, 9
(that storm drainage be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer) ,
10 (the garage be upgraded in the same character of the house to staff's
satisfaction) . The Motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
There was a 10 minute recess at 9:10.
DR 15-80 (Roy Ettinger) -- To consider a request by Ray Ettinger for final
Design Review approval to allow construction of an office building located
on State Street north of the Chevron Station (Tax Lot 6600 of Tax Map 2 lE 3AD) .
Mr. Galante presented the staff report, and the color board, revised drawings,
and photos of the site to the Board for review,
Roy Ettinger, applicant -- said he feels he has satisfied all requests of
staff and the Board. He saidhewoul,d like the option to sell the space for a
restaurant if possible, and explained that either a health club or restaurant
would be utilized after regular office hours, so the parking would not be a
problem on the site.
:. fz
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FEBRUARY 16, 1981 PAGE 5
Mr. Galante said that a health club was recently presented as a probable
occupant of the space on the lower level, and that if a restaurant were to
go into that space it would have to be reviewed for parking/traffic requirc,-
ments as well as other requirements for that type facility.
Mr. Ettinger went on to explain the change in the elevator location, and the
placement of the transformer. He said the drainage has been taken care or,
and that, a sewer line had been located under the Chevron service station,
which is adjacent to his property. Mr. Arseniev interjected that the adequacy
of that sewer line sill have to be proven to staff.
Mr. Ettinger said he will do whatever is necessary to satisfy the City. He
agrees with all staff recommendations. He outlined the garbage pickup, and
assured the Board that Rossman is willing to work out a pick-up plan which
will not interfere with regular working hours. He explained the ducting to be
used, and the mechanical units. The building will be sprinkled throughout.
The color of awnings (blue) on the building are acceptable to the Hoard. There
will be no signs on the building other than the one designating the name of
the name of the building and the address.
Mr. Galante said the Board should consider the specific proposal fora
raquetball/health club tonight, and if the applicant is considering any
other facility it should come back. Mr. Bates agreed that it would be difficult
to consider something without specific plans.
4 Mr. Ettinger said he could not wait as he would like to market the possibility
of putting in a restaurant. A discussion followed on this use, with the Board
concurring that they agreed with staff, that they could not approve something
without seeing plans.
Mr. Arseniev said he wanted it to go on the record that the storm and sanitary
sewer be designed by a registered engineer.
A discussion of specific hours of usage for the proposed health club followed.
Ms. Henick moved for approval of the request with conditions of the staff report
#1 through #5 applying, and the additional condition that the lower level may
be developed as a health/racquet ball club with specified hours of usage during
the week to be 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. . Holiday and weekend hours may be expanded.
Additionally, the drawings submitted should be coordinated to the satisfaction
of the staff. The transformer as Placed by the applicant is acceptable, but
the plantings for screening will have to be to the satisfaction of staff.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
GENERAL PLANNING
None.
Ask OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Galante reminded the Board that they should elect new officers tonight.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 1981 PAGE 6
Mr. Bonney was nominated for Chairman, and Mr. Bates for Vice-Chairman.
They were elected unanimously for these positions.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
g e
s""(1. A /4/..4 ..,'' 4.... `.e/"Zr.
Beverly S. jhill " G/ /Wl
Secretary
ilip
III
0
; •
•
•
..t .,.�,�. .._< ,:.� ♦tJ. x .v}_�a..a,. A r _,VS1,i�^fir, �_...�._.— �,c. r�..r�?
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING MARCH 2, 1981 PAGE 1
The Design Review Board meeting of March 2, 1981 was called to order at 7:40 p.m.
by Lang Bates, Vice-Chairman. Design Review Board members present were: Richard
Eslick, Lang Bates, Shirley Petrie, and Bede Nishimuru. Absent were: Joan Henick,
Robert Bonney, and Frank Clarke, Staff members present were: Robert Galante, City
Planner; Alex Arseniev, Assistant City Engineer; Ed Lanton, Assistant City Attorney;
and. Beverly Coghill , Secretary.
APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 16, 1981 MiNUTES
Mr. Eslick asked that the 16th paragraph, page 3, reference to "Ms." Eslick be changed
to "Mr." Eslick. With that correction, the minutes were approved unanimously.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Galante presented a request from Troyes Fish Market for a new sign. He described
the existing sign, which advertises both the fish market and the restaurant on the
site. The present request is for removal of the restaurant advertising, and installing
an entirely new sign. Mr. Galante presented a drawing of the new sign, stating that
it meets the Code requirements of the City, and would be in the same location. Even
though it is a much larger sign, it would not block vision, The City would require
that the present sign be removed, if the new sign is approved. 1
Tom Kathman, 74922 S.W. Gladstone, Portland, representative for the applicant, said
the restaurant portion of the sign would be relocated to the far end of the property,
lip near the restaurant. Mr. Kathman explained that the fish market is not doing the
business they feel they should be doing in that location and need more exposure.
He said that there is only one owner for the property.
Opposition
None.
Mr. Eslick said he believes the old sign matches the character of the building better.
He said he would like to review the restaurant sign along with the fish market sign.
Mr. Kathman asked if this is the only sign presented for the property, would the
Board approve. The Board did not wish to respond to that question without seeing
a complete sign proposal ,
Mr. Galante said he would present a staff report for the next meeting on this matter,
if it were held over, Mr. Bates said he would like previous minutes on the sign
approval included in the staff report, along with other pertinent 'information from,
staff.
Mr. Eslick moved to have the sign request brought back at the next meeting, with
a staff report addressing the concerns of the Board. The applicant should provide
additional information as requested by the staff to illustrate the extent of site
signage. Changes in the vision clearances should be addressed as well . The motion
was seconded and passed unanimously.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING MARCH 2, 1981 PAGE 2
. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
41 None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
DR 32-80 (Carl Halvorson/Robert Randall Co.) -- This item was withdrawn by the
applicant for this hearing, but will be on the April 6, 1981 agenda.
DR 2-81 (M. A. Sher Construction, Inc-.) -- A request by M. A. Sher Construction,
inc. , for preliminary and final design review approval to allow construction of 244
residential units (13 of which will be Special Use Housing Units) located on the
east side of Boones Ferry Road near the intersection of Country Club Road (Tax Lot
800 of Tax Map 2 1E 5DB) .
Mr. Galante presented; the staff report and site plans. He read a letter received
from the applicant today, which outlined his compliance with staff recommendations.
Mr. Galante explained that the driveway width variances would have to be approved
by City Council . Mr. Bates asked if the off-street parking meets with City standards,
and was told that it does. Mr. Bates asked if further color would be used on the
buildings, the sign, mailboxes, or the garages. Mr. Galante said the plans for these
items had not been submitted.
Mr. Arseniev said that on developments of this magnitude the developer should engage
a registered engineer executing with him an agreement which would be recorded by
• the City. Mr. Arseniev explained that the City Attorney had advised that this agree-
ment could be a condition of approval in all requests of land development similar to
that being heard tonight. Mr. Bates asked if non-remonstrance agreements were being
asked along Boones Ferry Road. Mr. Arseniev responded that they were not, as the
only work required of the builder is the replacement of a sidewalk along Boones Ferry
Road.
Questions were asked of Mr. Arseniev regarding the condition he had outlined, and
he clarified that the cost to the applicant will not be increased, since these con-
ditions would usually apply anyway and are a normal procedure; and that it is legal
for the Design Review Board to ask for this condition,
Burton Goodrich, applicant's architect, explained that the exposed portion of the
concrete foundation on the backside of the north units is less than 3 feet, The
garage door colors are the same as the trim. He said they are asking for shake roofs
in place of composition. Mr. Bates asked if the shakes would be treated with fire
retardants. Mr. Goodrich said this was not a requirement. Mr. Bates asked about
the mail box placement and design. Mr, Goodrich said they will be wood and installed
as one block for each unit -- so, a duplex will have two together, a triplex three
together, etc. ; the garage door will be stained, and the oxford-brown trim will be
consistent throughout the development.
Al Sher, applicant, said the mail boxes will be made out of planed cedar, similar to
Eastridge, and they will be grouped according to the unit capacity of each building
The front doors are all different, and he would like to apply different color stains
on each. If fire retardant is required on the shakes, he would like to have the
411 option of wing the composition material as originally planned, due to the expense.
He said the identification of the buildings can be on the side of the building or
on the doors.
In response to a question from Mr. Bates, Mr. Sher explained that he has offered to
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING MARCH 2, 1981 PAGE 3
improve the neighbors existing house to fit into the character of the development,
and this will entail roofing, painting, etc. , but not a fence. Mr. ArsenleV asked
m if there would be a recorded plat map of the site, and was informed that there would
be one.
Linda Potter, landscape architect, clarified that regarding to the number of trees
to be cut, the tree count did not include the open space and all the trees in that
area that are being saved. She said that the alders and ash were severely damaged
from the ice storm last year, and these will be cut, but the large fir trees wi I l
be saved throughout the development. In addition, many new trees will be planted.
The wooden planks in the plan will be surfaced for safety, and once the proper material
is determined, this will be presented to staff. The sign will have a brown stain with
dark burnt-orange lettering. The driveways have been designed to allow both cars to
get in and out of the driveway, and; still make room for a walkway to the door. She
explained that planting strips between the driveways do not survive well because of
foot traffic, and that raised planters interfere with car doors' opening. The drive-
ways will be of concrete with exposed aggregate. Ms. Potter explained that the Plan-
ning Commission had asked for a meandering sidewalk on Boones Perry Road, but that
this is not feasible due to, the extreme drop-off. She explained that the owners
will be able to do their own landscaping on the side and back yards, but, the area
disturbed by construction will be planted with ivy and vinca,
Nawzad Othman, Marx and Chase, said the entry road is existing, and it will be com-
pacted.
Opposition
• None.
There was a discussion on the roofing material , and whether or not the request should
be approved with composition, with the provision that it could be upgraded to shake
if the developer wished to do so. Mr. Eslick said he would prefer to have the request
come back if anything but shake is used.
Mr. Galante suggested that an arborist be retained to aid in the preservation of the
trees in the area of the retaining walls. Mr. Eslick said that if other retaining
walls are used, they should all be of the same material , and he would like to see the
railroad ties used, as proposed.
Mr. Eslick moved to approve the project as submitted, including the staff recommenda-
tions, with the following exceptions and additions: Condition //4 can be deleted, as
this has been fulfilled. Additional conditions to be added are: #8. That proper
turn-arounds be provided to the staff's satisfaction. #9. Public utilities and site
gradings plan be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and that this
is to be done by a registered engineer, #10. The mailbox plan and building 'identifi-
cation signage be presented to satisfaction of staff. I111 . A color board outlining
the accent colors be submitted. #12. That wood shakes roofs be provided. //13. That
a plat be recorded. #14. That an arborist be retained to insure the survival of trees
affected by the installation of retaining wails near the trees. #15. That the devel-
oper have the option to have individual door types and colors for the doors as he
wishes.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Ms. Petrie moved that it is the concensus of the Board that the variances could be
granted by Council for the driveway widths as submitted by the applicant. The motion
was seconded and passed unanimously.
it
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING MARCH 2, 1981 PAGE 4
2-81 Tree Cutting Permit -- Mr. Galante presented a site plan for the tree cutting
permit. Mr. Eslich moved to approve cutting of 102 trees as shown on Exhibit "0".
41 , The motion Was seconded and passed unanimously.
GENERAL PLANNING
The Board Was informed that the meeting for March 16, 1981 has been cancelled.
OTHER BUSINESS'.
Three Findings were presented by Mr. Galante for signing by the Vice-Chairman. They
were: DR 1-81 , VAR 1-81 , and VAR 2-81 .
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/„,,,„,,,
,.../s,...,,,,..,„,
f„,..
.....,74.. ,,,,,,-e:z..c,.....,
4
Beverly E. Coghill
Secretary
11
s•
DESIGN REV 1CW BOARD -_ dfd not meet on MATCH 16, 1981
f
•
I i
1
r
I
I
1
1
1
•
'i 111���
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING APRiL 6, 1981 PAGE 1
4110.
The Design Review Board Meeting of April 6, 1981 was called to order at 7.33 p.m,
by Robert Bonney, Chairman. Design. Review Board members present were Richard Eslick,
Joan Henick, Lang Bates, Robert Bonney, Shirley Petrie, and Frank Clarke. Bede
Nishiin,ura was absent. Staff members present were: Robert Galante, City Planner;
Alex Arseniev, Assistant City Engineer; Lori Mastrantonio-Meuser, City Planner;'
and Beverly Coghili , Secretary.
APPROVAL OF MARCH 2, 1981 MINUTES
The minutes of the March 2, 1981 meeting were approved unanimously, without cor-
rections.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Galante presented a letter from the Robert Randall Company with reference to
the Village Shopping Center, Lewis & Clarke State Bank. The letter appealed for
modifications to allow the removal of one island and one peninsula of landscaping
to improve the exiting. for trucks in one area, and to retain shopping cart storage
in another. Mr, Galante showed the Board the site plan, indicating the requested
modifications. There were no plans offered to substitute for these landscape areas
in other areas of the parking lot.
Ms. Petrie moved for approval of the modifications as requested by the Robert
411) Randall Company. The motion was seconded, and passed unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
PUBLIC HE
ARINGS
C EARING S
VAR 4-81 (Tri-Lee Homes, Inc.) -- To consider a request by Tri-Lee Homes, Inc. ,
for approval of a variance to reduce the right-of-way setback: on Upper Drive from
40 feet to 30 feet. In addition, approval of a variance to allow the creation
of a lot without road frontage. The site is located at 4050 SW Upper Drive and
4100 SW Upper Drive (Tax Lots 2300 and 2400 of Tax Map 2 1E 8CC) .
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser presented the staff report, passing the large Exhibits
"B." (Survey) and "C" (Site Plan) for review by the Board.
Bill Lee, applicant, clarified that the survey showed the final layout of the- site.
He agrees with all staff recommendations. Mr, Lee stated that he prefers using,
concrete in place of asphalt for the driveway material , if that is acceptable to
the Board. Mr. Arseniev responded that either material is acceptable to the City.
Opposition
None.
410 to response to a question from the Board, it was clarified that no trees would be
cut for this request.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING APRIL 6, 1981 PAGE 2
Ms. Henick moved for approval of VAR 4-81 , with the condition, that the conditions
of the Planning Commission approval be complied with.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
DR 32-80 (Carl Halvorson/Robert Randall Co.) -- To consider a request by Carl
Halvorson/Robert Randall Co. for preliminary and final design review approval to
allow construction of a 120 unit multi-family development located west of Boones
Ferry Road and east of Kerr Road in Mt. Park, (Tax Lots 1900 and 303 of Tax Maps
2 1E 5AA and 2 1E 5AD, respectively.
Mr. Galante asked for a short recess so .the Board could study mounted Exhibits,
"G" landscape plan, and "D", aerial photo of the site.
After the recess, Mr. Galante presented the staff report, and revised Exhibit ' P".
He also presented a color and material board which .had just been received for re-
view. Mr. Galante then reviewed the conditions 1 through 6. He indicated that
#1 has been complied with, and #2, /13, and 114 should be retained, #5 had been
addressed, and N6 may be revised after the testimony presented at this meeting.
Mr. Galante presented the following Exhibits for review by the Board, "T" (new)
landscape details, '"U" (new) additional elevations, tiM'' elevations, and "J" the
lighting' plan. He reviewed the street grades and said it conforms to the City code.
Mel Kroker, architect, commented on the staff recommendations as follows: 1 , Has
been shown on the plan, and it is acceptable to the staff, and reviewed with the
Fire Marshal . 2. Agrees with this item, and explained the drainage system to be
ilk used. 3. Agrees with this condition, and it is shown on the site plans. 4. Agrees
IOW with this, and explained the system. 5. Has conformed to the request. 6. The
development schedule should be from July 1 , 1981 and May 31 , 1982.
Mr. Bonney questioned high retaining walls on the previous plans, and asked how the
applicant would address this problem. Mr. Kroker referred the Board to Exhibit '1F"
and said the highest retaining wall in the project would be 8 ft. In answer to Mr.
Bonney's question regarding signage, Mr. Kroker referred him to Exhibit "K". He
said the mail boxes would be a part of the structure,-and explained the design.
The lighting plan was discussed in detail . Ms., Petrie asked if the lighting standards
were the same throughout the City. Mr. Galante said that the standards applied were
the same as those for any residential street.
Mr. Bonney expressed concern over the plan for sharing the garages, however, after
some discussion the Board concluded that the only restrictions to that plan would
be defined by the Building Department through the Uniform Building Code.
Linda Potter, landscape architect, remarked that she had walked the site With an
arborist, with al view to saving as many trees as possible. She explained the land-
scape plan in detail , and said all the trees would be saved but one. There are very
few grassy areas, and no area has been established for children's play. The one
grassy area is too steep for this kind of use.
Opposition
None411
Mr. Eslick said that mercury lighting might be more efficient than incandescent,
and the applicant agreed with this view. Mr. Galante suggested the Board could
ask that a photo switch be provided for the common garage areas. Mr. Bates suggested
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING APRIL 6, 1981 PAGE 3
that there were some opportunities to vary unit designs that were not taken advantage
4111 of.
Ms. Petrie moved for approval of the request, with conditions I through 6 applying;
With instructions that staff pay particular attention to //3, Condition //1 should
have the addition that a paving material be specified and barrier be approved by
the Fire Marshal ; Condition ,#l4 should include that 'a photoelectric or timed switch
be installed for the exterior lighting; Condition #5 should he to the satisfaction
of staff; Condition #6 is acceptable for a one'phase development, but if it 1$ later
decided to develop in more than one phase, this item should be brought back. Tho
color and material presented, by applicant are acceptable.
DR 4-81 (City of Lake Oswego) -- To consider a request by the City of Lake Oswego
for preliminary and final Design Review approval to allow construction of a Irainte-
nance building and public restrooms at George Rogers Park (Tax Lot 100 of Tax Map
2 lE 1IGB, Tax Lots 100 and 400 of Tax Map 2 lE IODA, and Tax Lot 3500 of Tax Map
2 lE IOAD) . Mr. Galante presented the staff report, and passed photos of the site
to the Board.
Mr. Bates asked if this building should be designed for handicapped use. Mr. Galante.:
said it was designed for the handicapped. Mr. Bates expressed his belief that it
could not actually serve the needs of the handicapped,
Glen Holzemer, 1120 SW McVey, applicant 's representative, stated that he had recently
gone Into a private business, but that at the. request of the City Manager he was
representing the City tonight. Mr. Holzemer expressed surprise that the staff
•
report contained the four items of condition for approval , us he felt these problems
had been worked out to staff satisfaction at the pre-application meeting. His com-
ments on the conditions were:
1 . This is a very small scope project and spot elevations should be
sufficient, but that the grading plans could be provided.
2. it was his understanding that the City Engineer agreed to let the
drainage take its natural path down the road to the parking area. Mr.
Holzemer stressed that over the years, there has been no drainage problem
by letting the natural run-off take its course, and he does not think the
addition of the new building will make enough difference to warrant the
requested design. He fears the suggested method could cause problems.
3. The construction schedule will be provided, and it is expected to be
completed within 120 days after bid.
4. The driveway paving requirement is "unreasonable", according to Mr.
Holzemer, and this could delay completion of the project. To expect
a comprehensive road plan in the pork would be costly and Mr. Galante
specified that staff did not expect an engineered plan, but that a
circulation plan would suffice.
Ms. Petrie asked if the restroom project had not come up, would the City be asking
for such a roadway plan. Mr. Galante replied that it is standard procedure for
such plans to be required, but only when a development permit is applied for.
• Therefore, it should be required at this time.
DESIGN 'REVIEW BOARD MEETING APR I L 6, 1981 PAGE 4
Mr. Bonney asked when the master plan for the park would be formulated. Mr,
filk Holzemer responded that the City was hoping to develop such a plan during the next
fiscal year, but he could not guarantee it. Mr. Holzemer pointed out that, there
was a restroom in the same location up until two years ago, so there are existing,
utilities there. He emphasized that truck traffic would be very light on the park
road, consisting mainly of small utility trucks for park maintenance.
Richard Carruthers , 814 E. Pike, Seattle, Washington, architect, asked for questions
of the Board.
Ms. Henick was concerned with the six-foot fence, and does not think it is high
enough to prevent entry, and feels the downspouts and skylite+ on the building
will invite vandalism. Mr. Carruthers said that an extremely steep metal roof
with no downspouts is the most effective, answer to the vandalism problem,
Mr. Bates said that even if the building did meet the requirements for the handi-
capped, the access to it did not, There was a discussion on the relationship of
the site to access routes for handicapped persons.
With reference to the lighting plan, Ms. Henick asked if another mercury light
on the restroom side of the building could be required.
There was no opposition.
Mr. Galante advised the Board that if the driveway is not improved, it will deteriorate
by the vehicles using it, especially where it abuts the concrete slab of the building,
Ms. Henick moved for approval with the four conditions of the staff report applying.
• Additional dialogue was added to Condition #2, stating that other alternate methods
should be explored for drainage such as rip rap, dry wells, or Just leaving it to
drain naturally, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Condition,#4 will indi-
cate that the driveway is to be paved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. An
additional Condition #5 is added, that security lighting be provided on the restroom
side of the building, to the satisfaction of staff.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Ms. Petrie asked the staff to be sure the Board has a master plan when reviewing
similar requests, and stressed that the City lighting standards should be applied
consistently.
GENERAL PLANNING
Mr. Galante presented a copy of the minutes of the City Councii meeting of 3/31/81
to each member of the Board, and a copy of Section 3. Quasi-judicial Hearing Pro-
cedures, Resolution R-80-24, to each member.
The following Findings were signed by the Chairman; DR 33-80 (Robert Randall Co.) ,
and DR 37-80 (Tri-Lee Homes) .
Mr. Galante discussed with the Board the need for meeting to review the Findings
procedures and the new development standards,
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING APRIL 6, 1981 PAGE
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11 : 10 p.m
Respectfully submitted,
Beverly Coghill
Secretary
s, ICI
NOTE: NO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
ON APRIL 20, 1981 ,
� �1
,
r
I
1
I
T
a
I
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MAY 4, 1981 PAGE 1
r The Development Review Board meeting of May 4, 1981 was called to order at 7:36 p.m.
by Robert Bonney, Chairman. Development, Review Board members present were: Richard
Eslick, Robert Bonney, Joan Henick, Bede Nishimura, and Shirley Petrie. Frank Clarke
and Lang Bates were absent. Staff members present were: Robert Galante, City
Planner; Alex Arseniev, Assistant City Engineer; Ed Lanton, Deputy City Attorney
and Beverly Coghill , Secretary.
APPROVAL OF APRIL 6, 1981. MINUTES
The minutes of the April 6, 1981 meeting were approved unanimously, without cor-
rections.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
DR 36-78 (Robert, Randall Company) Mr. Galante presented a letter from the Robert
Randall Company asking for changes on a 27-unit project on Eagle Crest Drive in
Mountain Park. This development has been purchased by the Caravan Oil Inc., and
they would like to substitute wood shakes for the bar tile roofing that had been
approved. They also asked to eliminate the taller clear story windows and substi-
tute them with skylights in the two-story plans. Staff believes the changes to be
minor, and approve. After reviewing the request, Ms. Petrie møvd for approval
of the two changes. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
• DR 33-80 (Lewis & Clarke State Bank) -- Mr. Galante explained that the applicant
had submitted a new sign proposal as requested by the Board for the site; of the
Lewis & Clarke State Bank in the Lake Oswego Shopping Center. Mr. Galante reviewed
the original sign, and showed the plan for that sign. He then presented the new
plan (Exhibit "K") ,, and showed the lettering type (Exhibit nL") that will be placed
upon the sign. Mr. Galante read from the Code to clarify the conformity of the sign.
Bob Fulton, 12534 Iron Mt. , Portland, applicant, described the sign as being 2 feet
off the ground, and explained the method for changing the letters and protecting
the sign,, These precautions were felt necessary due to the public accessibility
to the sign. Mr. Fulton appealed for a change of requirement that the base be
of brick. He reasoned that a stucco base would fit in better with the building,
which is to be stucco finish.
Opposition
None.
Ms. Petrie moved for approval of the sign as presented in the new exhibits, and
that a condition be applied indicating that the base of the sign shall be stucco
finish to match the building. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. 1
_ She rbrook Project) The request is
i Permit, Marx & Chase :for
8 .Cottn
DR 2 1 (Tree9
to cut 23 trees in order to allow an 8" water line from Country Club Road to the
4 project. The Engineering Department of the City agrees with the necessity of this
tree cutting. Mr. Galante explained that most of the trees are alders, The trees
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MAY 4, 1981 PAGE 2
average 8" to 12" in diameter.
41/ Opposition
None.
Ms. Henick moved for approval of the tree cuttinci permit as requested. The motion
was seconded and passed unanimously,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VAR 5-81 (Ray and Georgianna Martin) -- To consider a request; for a lot width variance
by °Ray and Georgianna Martin. The property is located on the east side of Uplands
Drive, near its intersection with Egan Way (14410 Uplands Drive) . A minor partition
was approved on this site subject to the approval of the lot width variance by the
Development Review Board. Tax Lot 1400 of Tax Map 2 IE 4CB, Mr. Galante presented
the staff report, and asked a new condition be placed on each flag-lot approval
as a matter of standard policy hereinafter, that being; the site should be addressed
at the street for proper identification and emergency vehicle convenience.
Regarding the drainage, Mr. Arseniev explained that as a part of the sales agreement
the lower lot owner should be aware that he must accept the drainage from the upper
lot. He suggested the drainage be done subterraneanly.
John Paulson, 1439 SW Uplands Drive, applicant, stated that he is trying to buy the
lower lot, and he now lives on Tax Lot 1300. He accepts the drainage problem, and
will take care of it. His plan is to build a house on the new lot in the future.
410 He explained that he sees no real problem with drainage on the lot due to the drain-
age tiles that have been placed there as a part of the golf course.
Mr. Eslick moved for approval of the request with recommendations and conditions of
the staff applying regarding the drainage and that the new lot be addressed on
Uplands Drive. He asked that the drainage condition be expanded to state that
the new owner accept the drainage from the upper lot as a condition of sale, and
that the purchaser of parcel #2 accept primary responsibility for the drainage
from parcel 1/1 , and that the drainage problem be resolved to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer,
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
DR 15-30 (Roy Ettinger) -- To consider a request by Roy Ettinger for modifications
of previously approved plans for a commercial , building located on the east side
of State Street north and adjacent to the Chevron Station (Tax Lot 6600 of Tax
Map 2 lE 3DD) .
Mr. Galante presented the staff report, and said that since the staff report was
written, a letter has been received from the applicant (Exhibit I-1) . The new
proposal (according to the applicant) will be more cost effective, Mr. Galante
showed the State Street elevations to the Board (Exhibit G-1) , There will be no
r inthe newproposal , and that space will be used for offices.
court
AI
racquetball cp
Roy Ettinger, architect and applicant, displayed the new model and the previous
W model for review by the Board. He explained his new proposal as being an earth
sheltered, underground concept. The view from the offices will be retained. He
cmmpared the cost of the new plan at $600,000 to the $9000000 for the previous
plan. He declared that the energy use for the new plan would be minimal due to
the earth-shelter concept. He described this as being a "non-building", and feels
r ,
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MAY 4, 1981 PAGE 3
this is a coming thing in architecture.
• Mr. Bonney and Mr. Eslick concurred that when an earth-sheltered building is de-
signed for a site, it is done to maximize landscaping, etc. , and this is not the
case here. It is simply removing the upper part of building, and leaving what
is for all intents and purposes a parking lot. Mr. Bonney asked if there were
future plans to build above ground, a* originally suggested. Mr. Ettinger said
that he could not do this because he would not have enough parking spaces to
satisfy the City Code.
Ms. Henick advised Mr. Ettinger that if he wished to have approval of this project
as presented tonight, then the former proposal would not be valid as an alternative.
She clarified that the Board cannot approve two different proposals Just so an
applicant can present choices to prospective financers.
Mr. Eslick contended that the concept is not unacceptable, but there is not enough
thought and planning for it to work on this site. The railroad tracks run right
by the office, and the lower windows could be blocked by a train sitting there
at some times of the day.
Ms. Henick moved for denial of the modification. Mr. Eslick seconded, and it was
passed unanimously.
GENERAL PLANNING.
Mr. Galante gave each member of the Board a copy of the minutes from the City Council
40 meeting. He also presented an "Assessment of Housing Needs," a report which was
put together by a consultant addressing Lake Oswego housing.
VAR 4-81 Findings were presented and signed for approval .
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business , the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beverly E. oghili
Secretary
•
m
i
•
{r
I
It r
0
7
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MAY 18, 1981 PAGE 1Ifit
The Development Review Board meeting of May 18, 1981 was called to order at 7:35 p.m.
P by Lang Bates, Vice-Chairman. Development Review Board members present wore:
Richard £slick,, Bede Nishimura, Shirley Petrie, Lang Bates, and Frank Clarke. Robert,
M Bonney and Joan Henick were absent. Staff members present were: Robert Galante) Clty
Planner; Alex Arseniev, Assistant City Engineer; Ed Lanton, Deputy City Attorney; and
Beverly Coghill , Secretary.
•
APPROVAL OF MAY 4, 1981 MINUTES
0 The minutes of the May 4, 1981 meeting were approved unanimously, without corrections,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
DR 28-80 (Austin Nichols) -- A letter was received from Austin Nichols asking approval
to change the roof material on townhouses for DR 28-80. This change would substitute
cedar shakes for the Architect 70 composition material approved by the Board. Mr.
Galante showed a sample of the new material to the Board, and presented the site
elevations for clarification on the application. Mr. Eslick moved for approval of the
substitution of cedar shake roofing as regl.lested. The motion was seconded and passed
unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
ilk None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
DR 6-81 (Mountain Park Racquet Club) -- To consider a request by the Mountain: Park
Racquet Club for Design Review approval of an addition to the facility located at
Three Botticelli (Tax Lot 3200 of Tax Map 2 1E 5BC) ,
Robert Galante presented the staff report, explaining that the original application
reviewed by the Planning Commission in 1971 (there was no Design Review Board at that
time) illustrated this expansion, and was reviewed with the knowledge that the expan-
sion would take place. Mr. Galante showed the site plan (Exhibit C) for clarification
of the setbacks, The applicant adheres to the setback requirements. The color board
(Exhibit K) and photos of the site were presented. Mr. Galante informed the Board
that the Architectural Review Committee for Mountain Park agreed with staff recom-
mendation that the walls should be of brick to match the existing building.
Dale Wagner, of Richard Gessford Architects, presented a slide show of the site, explain-
ing the' configuration of the addition. He responded to the staff recommendations as
follows: 1 . The Fire Lane designation on the access road will be executed; 2,
Douglas firs will be added to the landscape plan to accomplish this; 3. The: current
drawings show 5-foot setbacks, and this 'satisfies the condition; 4. The applicant
feels there is misinterpretation on the material to be used. The walls are to be
metal and stucco. Above the 5-foot retaining wall, the choice of siding is- a pre-
finished metal. The existing facies are continued, and so are the concrete buttresses.
The roofing will not be the same, as that material is no longer on the market, and
has proven to be unsatisfactory due to rusting from inside and out, which causes
leaks. The new material will be a baked enamel metal r;",.oich has been custom colored
-- --- - ' '�r- --
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MAY 18, 1981 PAGE 3
Mr. Bates asked where the mechanical units would be placed. They will be on the roof,
• and screened by a 30-inch parapet. They will be 11 ton units. Mock Orange is to be
used as landscape material on the south of the building. The building behind the
warehouse is a private residence, but it 'is zoned industrial . Mr. Galante explained
the landscaping in the right-of-way, stating that a sidewalk may be required. Mr.
Kraxberger mentioned that the pods plight be changed somewhat, depending on the buyers ,
but these changes would not effect the outward appearance of the structure.
Opposition
Robert Turnbull , 5775 Willow Lane, expressed surprise and anger over the prospect of
the City requiring an additional 15 feet of right-of-way from him. He plans to live
In his home, and not develop for industrial use, and feels that those who do convert
to industrial should bear the burden of supplying the right-of-way footage the City
requires. Mr. Galante explained that such a requirement was not asked of residents.
Robert Perry, 5755 Willow Lane, objected to Mr. Galante's description of the single
family residences in the area as being run-down. He was concerned that the additional
traffic, especially trucks, would cause a problem with dust and/or mud in the right
of-way that was not paved, He asked if the City would pave this area to insure that
such a condition would not arise. Mr. Arseniev explained that a half-street improve-
ment was not an acceptable approach to street improvements, and reminded the Board
that the driveway will be paved, so the problem of dust and/or mud should be minimal .
Mr. Perry felt the vehicles would still use the shoulder for parking, passing, etc.
It was suggested the 3-foot area in question could be improved by gravel or some other
suitable alternative, as a condition of approval in the interitii until an LID is formed.
S Mr. Perry also expressed concern over the drainage, and how it would be addressed. It
was clarified that the applicant is required to handle the water on the site by dry
Wells, and he is providing a stub out from his property to hook up to the storm drains
when they are placed in Willow Lane.
Mr. Perry asked if the project would be flit up like a carnival".
Mr. Galante ekplained that the four lights would be very similar to street lighting
standards.
Proponents
Joe Neuschwander, 5700 Willow, explained the location of the transformers. He said
there will be 15 meters across the front of the structure. This will be behind the
screen, and Is notfinalized.
Mr. Bates asked for a decision by the Board as to whether or not this is to be reviewed
as a preliminary or final application. After detailed discussion on the requirements
of final approval , it was decided to deliberate on the basis of preliminary approval .
This decision was based on the unresolved questions regarding parking dimensioning,
landscaping in the front yard, paving, the location and screening of the transformer
pad and meters on the front of the building, the small-scale planting at the rear of
the project, and the need to revise site lighting. The Board believed, based on the
testimony of the applicant, that an effort had been made to coordinate development,
•
but that it was not feasible. The condominium concept of selling, regarding the re-
ly by law that the access be privately owned was questioned, and Mr. Galante:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MAY 18, 1981 PAGEJ4
Pointed out that there are condominiums in the City that share common access roads.
Mr. Eslick moved for preliminary approval of the request based upon the items in the
above paragraph with the staff recommendations #1 through 1/7 applying, except that
Condition 113 (coordination with the adjacent property to the west) was deleted.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
GENERAL PLANNING
None.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Galante asked if the minutes of the City Council would suffice for information
regarding action taken that would affect the Development Review Board, Mr. Bates
asked for more detail only if Board decisions are under consideration, and If there
are other specifically related issues.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business , the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
410 Beverly E. oghill
Secretary
1111
/r'"'
1 +'
ti
ti
.tea
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING JUNE 15, 1981 PAGE
41) The Development Review Board meeting of June 15, 1981 waa called to order at
7:35 p.m. by Lang Bates, Vice-Chairman. Development Review Board members
present were: Richard Eslick, Bede Nishimura, Shirley Petrie, Lang Bates,
and Frank Clarke. Robert Bonney and Joan Renick were absent. Staff members
present were: Robert Galante, City Planner; Ed Lenten' Deputy City Attorney;
Lori Mastrantonio-Meuser, City Planner; and Beverly Coghill, Secretary.
APPROVAL OF MAY 18, 1981 MINUTES
Mr. Eslick moved for approval of the minutes of May 18, 1981. Ms. Nishimura
seconded and the motion passed unanimously, with nO corrections.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
DR 24-79, Rutile11 Hansen, representing the Terra Northwest Industries in Mt. Park,
requested a change in roofing material for the project. The staff believes that
the change is in keeping with the style of the building and may even ba considered
as upgrading. Raleigh Architectural Roof Tile (Riviera, Color: OreY) will be
substituted for the Mieroxinc 70 Metal Roof Syttem. Mr. Bate commented that
it was a well done project. Mr. Eslick moved for approval, and Mr. Clarke secOnded.
The motion passed Unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
411 - PUBLIC HEARINGS
VAR 10-81, I.M.O. Holdings, was withdrawn because the applicant had failed to
supply a complete property ownership list for notification purposes. The staff
had received complaints from neighbors that they were not sufficiently notified.
The hearing has been rescheduled for July 6, 1981,
VAR 9-81 (Rodney J. and Joyce A. Flake) -- To consider a request by Rodney J.
and Joyce A. Flake for a variance to reduce the 15 foot rear yard setback to 2
feet behind the garage and 5 feet behind the kitchen. The applicants wish to
extend their garage and add a greenhouse. The site is loCated at 19 Cellini Court.
(Tax Lot 7800 of Tax Map 2 1E 5BB Supplemental).
Ms. Mestrentonio-Meuser presented the staff report.
Mr. Clarke asked for clarification on the need for the easement. Mr. Galante
explained the easement is no longer necessary, and the condition applied would
require the elimination of the easement.
Mrs. Flake, applicant, said the easement question has been addressed, and she
takes care of the drainage across the property, and there are no problems.
Mr. Bates asked if she had discussed the proposal with any of the neighbors, and
she responded that she had talked to some of them, and they were in favor of it.
ilk Ms. Flake described the addition. The 13-foot garage addition will be large enough
'Pr
Development Review Board Meeting June 15, 1981 PAGE 2
for a workshop at one end, and long enough to park two compact
act cars end-to-end,
Affik rather than side-by-side.
side.
Mr. Eslick noted a discrepancy on the plans, which had originallybeen for. 10
discrepancy
feet, and the proposal tonight was for a 13-foot extension. Mr. Eslick was
also concerned that the 20-foot height coming within 2 feet of the property line
might be in conflict with the surrounding neighborhood.
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser pointed out that there is a 22 foot common property
strip between the rear yards, so total setbacks will be increased. This area
has a barkdust trail on it. Mr. Bates asked for the variance criteria. Mr.
Galante reminded the Board of City Council's ruling on the review of variances.
Generally, Council has ,advised the, Board to take a more liberal view, in regard
to hardship requirements. Mr. Lanton read the criteria for clarification.
Ms. Petrie moved t``, approval with the conditions of the staff report applying,
and with the addi .zonal condition that accurate plans be submitted showing the
change from 10 feet to 13 feet. Mr. Clarke seconded the motion. - The motion
passed with all Board members voting in favor, with the exception of Mr. Eslick,
who voted no.
Mr. ( slick asked to go on record as opposing because he feared this would set
a precedent, and that other residents of Mt. Park might feel that because of the
common area, they, too, could change the setbacks on their property.
DR I9-77 (Russell Hanson) -- To consider a request by Russell Hanson for approval
of modifications to previously approved plans to allow buildings 25 through 28
Ash to be shortened by 11 feet 6 inches, to change the location of the elevator shaft,
IMF and to widen some sliding glass doors. The units are located in the Oswego Summit
Condominium development on McNary Parkway (Tax Lot 226 of Tax Map 32 IS 1E, Mult-
nomah County) . Robert Galante presented the staff report.
Russell Hanson, architect, 113 SW Front Street, Portland, stated that the staff
report outlined the request, and he is in agreement with it. The main reason
for this proposal is to make the units more attractive by lowering the cost. lie
emphasized that all materials will match the existing Units, and the facade will
be the same. Mr. Galante stressed that modified plans should be submitted to
show that the roof of the garage units will conform to previously approved design.
Regarding the construction schedule, Mr. Hanson indicated that they will begin in
September, 1981, and complete in September, 1982. This is to be done in one phase.
Mr. Galante advised the applicant that if the construction cannot be completed
within that year, he will have to ask for modification of his construction schedule.
Opposition
None,
Mr. Eslick moved for approval of the request as submitted, including the recommend-
ations of staff and adding a condition (4) that the garage structures match the
original garage structures, and (5) that the period of the construction will
begin September, 1981, and be completed by September, 1982.
110 The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
t .
Deve,l,:ipment Review Board Meeting June 15, 1981 PAGE 3
Sign Review -- To consider a request by Jodi Benkowski to allow a wall sign
3 feet by 5 feet, advertising "The Nailer,' to be erected at 424A Second Street.,
(Tax Lot 3400 of Tax Map 2 lE 3DD) .
Robert Calante presented the staff report, and showed a sketch of the sign
proposed. lie was concerned that the sign presented did not show colors or exact
lettering to be used. A discussion on Previously approved signs followed. Mr.
Lanton read from the Sign Code and the. Design Review Ordinance to clarify the
duties of the Board.
Mr. Bates observed that it is the consensus of the Board to bring tht; sign 'back
for review with the color and materials illustrated, showing the exact Letter
style and size of lettering, the elevation of the building it will be p:Laced upon,
and a photograph or drawing of the surrounding buildings. Ms. Nishimura moved
that the sign be resubmitted to staff and the Board under Unfinished Business
at the next meeting, to include a description of materials to be used, and an
elevation or photograph along with a streetscape, type face and colors, and
method of attachment and location upon the facade (This can be by photograph
or drawings) . Mr. Eslick seconded the motion. The motion passed with all Board
members voting in favor with the exception of. Mr. Clarke, who voted no.
GENERAL PLANNING
DR 6-81 (Racquet Club) Findings were presented for, approval.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Alh Mr. Galante informed the Board of a Conditional Use request by the Fire Department
II, for a fire training facility at the south end of 'Foothills Road adjacent to the
Willamette River, in Roehr Marine lark. lie informed them that the project will
appear before the Board eventually, as the site is in the Willamette Greenway,
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beverly hill S retary
8
i
•
ir
•
• .
L.
:zr
t'M
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING July 6, 19.81 PAGE 1
The Development Review Board meeting of July 6, 1981 was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Alk by Robert Bonney, Chairman. Development Review Board members present were: Richard
Eslick, Bede Nishimura, Robert Bonney, Frank Clarke, and Joan Henick. Lang Bates and
Shirley Petrie were absent. Staff members present were: Robert Galante, City Planner;
Ed Lanton, Deputy City Attorney; Lori Mastrantonio-Meuser, City Planner; and Beverly
Coghill , Secretary; and Alex Arseniev, Assistant City rngineer.
APPROVAL OF JUNE 15, 1981 MINUTES
Mr. Clarke moved for approval of the June 15, 1981 minutes, with no corrections. The
motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
PETiTIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Bonney advised the public that Item C on the agenda had been withdrawn from tonight's
meeting, VAR 12-81 (Mr. and Mrs. Wes Lematta) .
Mr. Galante presented three sign; applications for approval by the
Board:
1 . Columbia Neon Company for Sheepskin of Oregon, manufacturers of lambskin seat
covers for a building on McVey Avenue. The sign is 4 feet in height, and
staff recommended approval . The applicant was not in attendance. There
was no opposition from the public. Mr. Eslick moved for approval of the
sign as presented. The motion was seconded, and passed unanimously.
2. Charles Compton of Collector's Gallery, located in the old Lakewood School ,
• now the Lakewood Center. Mr. Galante explained that this was an existing
sign, being moved from a gallery formerly owned by Mr. Compton in Arizona.
The request was to place the sign on the Middlecrest side of the building.
This is a 2 ft. x 5 ft. solid redwood sign with white lettering. Staff did
not approve of the sign because the Lakewood building will likely house
many tenants that would request such signs. Mr. Galante reminded the
Board that such tenants are allowed in the building, but individual signs
were not a part of the original approval . The building is in a residential
zone and commercial signage should not be allowed for a Conditional Use
in that zone.
Charles Compton, applicant, said he was not told that he could not have a
sign for his business when he was approached by a group representing' the
Community Theatre. His is commercial endeavor, and he assumed that he
could put up the sign. He appealed to the Board to consider that he had
spent considerable money for the sign, and needs it to develop his business.
He asked if he could be allowed to place the sign as requested on an , interim
basis.
Opposition.
None.
Ms. Henick pointed out that the issue is not the particular sign, which is attractive,
but it is the precedence that might be set by allowing it. Mr. Eslick asked if the
applicant could resubmit a sign' request, based upon the sign he would place on the kiosk.
Development Review Board Meeting July 6, 1981 Page 2 •
Mr. Compton declared that he would like to see the issue re-opened, for consideration
go of some kind of permanent sign for use by the tenants, as there will be businesses
that need to be identified so that they may survive in their endeavors.
Mr. Galante suggested this item be tabled until the Lakewood Center illustrates the
need for signage for all commercial tenants. Mr. Eslick moved to table the sign re-
quest. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
3. Kathleen Rutledge, 4477 Lakeview Blvd. Farmer's Choice, a produce market .
Mr. Galante presented some color samples and drawings for a 5 ft. x 8 ft. `
sign which would be painted on the brick wall facing Bryant Road. There
will also be a sign on the front of the building, which does not have to
be approved by the Board.
The applicant Was not in attendance.
Opposition
•
None.
Mr. Clarke moved for approval of the sign as presented. The motion was seconded and
passed unanimously.
•
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DR 33-80, Lewis & Clark State Bank located in the Village Shopping Center, irrigation
plan. Mr. Galante reviewed the required plan, indicating that the hose bibs were to
f111 be placed 100 feet on center. He said this has not been done, and there are areas
of landscaping in the shopping center that cannot be reached by the existing hose bibs.
Staff feels the requirement should be met, as originally approved.
Tony Yraguen, 115 NW 129th, Portland, applicant, explained that after the first year
the plants would be established, and the hose bibs would not be needed. Two new hose
bibs are being placed on the Thriftway building in addition to the existing ones.
Mr. Eslick calculated that it would take three additional hose bibs to water the
landscaping the way it was supposed to be. Mr. Eslick moved for approval of the
irrigation plan as submitted, with two additional hose bibs to be placed on the north
end, and one on the southwest corner. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VAR 10-81 (I .M.O. Holdings) A request by I .M.O. Holdings for a variance to increase
•
the height of a fence from three and one-half feet to six feet. The site is located
at 1188 Cherry Circle. (Tax Lot 7100 of Tax Map 2 1E 15AB) .
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser presented the staff report, and read a letter in opposition
from Elaine and Rudolph Stevens, 1099 Cherry Circle, dated July 3, 1981 . Ms. Mastran-
tonio-Meuser explained that the fence requested was allowed by City Code, except for
the height in the front of the property. The material (stucco) is allowed.
Doug Dennison, 18910 SW Terry Avenue, applicant's representative, referred to the pool
as a factor for the request of the fence. There have been numerous burglaries, and
problems with dogs tearing up the garden, and children climbing on the bank. it is
I the applicant's contention that these problems can be resolved with the installation of
the fence. The applicant hopes to avoid the expense of installing a closed circuit
TV scanner for protection, and the fence k being installed as an alternative,
i
•
Development Review Board Meeting July 6, 1981 Page 3
Mr. Bonney asked what the finish was on the house. Mr. Dennison responded that\`it '
was cedar siding, p goodsecurity, fence. Ms.
ler but the foundation that is exposed is the, same. as the if thaC was
not
theick mainmreasoned forhat thethe solid re request. tSheegathepp work withthe police
q suggestedapplicant
department for a better alternative. Mr. Dennison stressed that privacy was just as •
important to the applicant. •
Opposition
Lajos Balogh, 1199 Terry Circle, expressed surprise that the request was not withdrawn
from tonight' s agenda, as he had been in contact with the applicant's brother, and
been told that if the neighbors objected to the fence, the appilration Would be with-
drawn. Mr. Balogh contended that a Wrought iron fence would be acceptable. He referred
to pages 85 and 86 of the Zoning Ordinances which require special and unusual conditions '
for allowing fences such as this . He pointed out that there are no walls in the neigh-
borhood similar to this, and the solid wall would also add a noise factor. The structure
is esthetically unacceptable in this neighborhood.
Walt Freeman, 1098 Cherry Circle, does not object to a fence, but does object to the '
solid wall, and feels this might hurt the property values -in the neighborhood.
Rebuttal
Doug Dennison, has discussed placing landscaping on the fence. The arborvitae will
be installed against the fence. The block structure is better than wrought iron be
cause it is more private, and less expensive. Maybe they can place wrought iron on
Amok top of the 42-inch block fence in the front.
Mr, Eslick stated that he does not agree that it is necessary to have 6 feet of fencing
all the way around the property, but would not object if the front had wrought iron
on top of the blocks.
Ms. Nishimura described two homes in the area with basically the same "walled" look
that this fence will effect.
Mr. Eslick suggested that the front fence could be set back 20 feet, thren it could
be 6 feet high without the variance.
•
Ms. Henick moved for denial of the request because it does not meet the hardship
requirement. Mr. Eslick seconded the motion. The motion passed with Ms. Henick,
Mr. Bonney, and Mr. Eslick voting in favor, and Mr. Clarke and Ms. Nishimura voting no.
VAR 11-81 (PSI Conveying Groups, Inc. , James E. Livesay, President) -- To consider
a request for approval of a variance to allow the creation of a lot without road
I.
frontage. The applicant wished to divide the property located at 5895 SW Jean Road
into two lots. The back lot will not have road frontage. Therefore, the applicant nt
proposes a 25-foot wide easement to be used as access to the back parcel .
2700, Tax Map 2 1 E 18BD)
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser presented the staff report. She clarified that tihe Jeat; ;toad
extension would not take place for approximately two years. The PSI parking require-
ments have been met, and the new lot can have its own parking or share parking with
PSi . Mr. Bonney asked if they would have two accesses after the Jean Road Extension
Sis built. Mr. Arseniev replied that it is desirable to have access from two points.
The applicant was not in attendance.
•
ii N
Development Review Board Meeting July 6, 198i Page
Opposition
S None.
Mr. Bonney felt there should be a shared access when the extension Is built, Mr.
Eslick moved for approval with conditions of the staff report applying and the
additional condition (7) showing shared access from the new road with PSI . The
motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
VAR 1 -81 (Scott J. Fraser) -- To consider a request by Scott J. Fraser for approval
of a variance to allow the creation of two lots without road frontage. In addition,
approval of a lot width variance from the required 80 feet to approximately 50 feet.
The applicant wishes to divide the property located at 425 C Avenue into three parcels.
The two rear lots will not have road frontage. Therefore, the applicant proposes a
25,foot wide easement to be used as access to the two rear lots. (Tax Lot 1200, Tax
Map 2 1E iAC) .
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser presented the staff report . clarifying that the view would
not be altered, and lot sizes would be In excess of the D-4 designation. The gravity
sewer requirements can be met.
Scott Fraser, 5250 Landing Drive, referring to Condition 12 of the staff report asking
for a 20-foot dedication for right-of-way, feels that there should be 10 feet on each
side, rather than the entire 20 feet from his property. Mr. Arsenicv explained that
the othtr side had dedicated 30 feet in years past, and so whatever the City requirc,.s
in the way of additional right-of-way must come from new development. Mr. Fraser
expressed concern about the requirement that gravity sewers be constructed. He would
AIL be Willing to specify in the deed that the City would not be responsible or liable
lir if the pump malfunctioned. If a pump could not be used, the houses would have to
be closer together and elevated. The City has objected to the energy required for
a pump, but Mr. Fraser does not feel this is an important factor. Warning systems,
and generators can be used in case of failure of the pump. The sewer requirement
would make the homes too close together and too expensive to be viable for investment.
The turn-around required is acceptable to Mr. Fraser.
Opts i t ion
Michael O'Brien, 743' 9th Street, FAN representative, said before he started his dis
the use of an overhead transparency ro
sertation, he would like to suggest p Y ector so p .�
the audience can see the exhibits that the Board examines.
Mr. O'Brien emphasized that this request cannot legally be approved. He pointed out
that the current zoning ordinance is the only test that can be applied to the request. I
He stated there is no written resolution from the City Council that this ordinance
can be "liberalized," He said even if they had made such a resolution, the request
would still' have to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The staff report
does not show a hardship test. In summary, the burden of proof is on the applicant
to illustrate hardship. This $ to has potential soil instability. The applicant
should get a soils examination before the application reaches this stage of presenta-
tion. Regarding the right-of-way, the City is asking for a 20-foot dedication along
"G" Avenue, and some of the neighbors do not beiieve this is fair. If the residence
was already established, the City would have to buy the 20 feet, "G" Avenue does not
410 have to be 50-feet wide, according to the neighbors. This is only a single-family
residential zone, and the traffic will not increase that much, Regarding the re,novai
of trees to provide for the partition, the application shows that there is planned
removal of Some very mature fruit trees. If the City allows this plan, the applicant
should be required to replace the trees with similar trees on the site.
Development Review Board Meeting July 6, 1981 Page
Mr. Bonney asked if FAN disagreed with the variance because of the partition, or the
•
1egalities, Mr. O'Brien responded that they are not against the two lots, but they
are against the illegal process, In his personal opinion, he feels that application
could have been made legally, with better direction from the staff. Ms. Henick and
Mr. Bonney stated that the. Board is just as concerned as the FAN, and always determine
their decision by applying the legal requirements for hardship, etc. She felt Mr.
O'Brien was 'jumping to conclusions, to presuppose that the Board would do otherwise,
i
Leonard Novak, 435 "G" Avenue, contended that if they put a road along the property
line as planned, it will be 10 feet from his living room window, According to the
City, any tree over 5 inches that is to be cut will have to have a permit, and there
are 11 trees over b inches in the easement. Some are 12 inches to 24 inches. All
these trees would have to come out, and there will not be any trees between him and
the house next door. lie also expressed concern for adequate manuevering of fire
equipment and for the need for gravity sewer lines.
David Berentson, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Terry Saylors, informed the Board that his
clients are concerned about the impact ofhaving three neighbors, instead of just one,
Also, the gravity flow sewer is of concern to them. The 'neighboring houses would have
to be elevated 9 feet for sewer gravity flow. Mr. Berentson agrees with Mr. O'Brien
that there is no hardship.
Dick Moran, 701 "G" Avenue, announced that he was speaking on behalf of several neighbors,
and presented a letter of opposition with 17 signatures (Exhibit C) , There is no justi-
fication for a variance because there is no hardship. Also, some of the neighbors
that have lived there for40 or 50 years contend that the land in question was used
for a dump site many years ago, and therefore would not be stable, They arc opposed
41 to pumps for the sewer, and others in the area have been denied, so it would not be
fair if this applicant is approved to have a pump, The density and traffic would be
increased, and more variances would be required, according to the staff report.
Mr. Galante read the letter in opposition, for the record (Exhibit "C") ,
Peter Caraw4 305 "G" Avenue, is concerned about the character of the neighborhood
being changed because of the array of variances being required.
Mrs. Leonard Novak, 435 "G" Avenue, is concerned about the noise, and pointed out that
because of the location of the creei< on the property, noise is magnified. She asked
if anybody at the State Park had been notified of tonight's hearing,
Ms Mastrantonio-Meuser assured her that they had been notified,
Debra Lincoln, 777 "E" Avenue, FAN president, informed the Board that she had not re--
ceivcd a notice on this item.
Rebuttal_
Mr. Fraser pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan calls for more density in this
area, and the character of the nelghborhdod would have to be changed in order to
satisfy increased density. A soil test will be required as a part of the building'
permit, but he was unaware that this' had been a dump site. lie doesn' t want to go too
close to the neighbor, but the road in question is only a driveway. The trees In
Alh question could be saved by moving the road, There are a variety of house styles and
41, age i in the neighborhood, so new homes would not have a great impact on the character
of buildings there. Mr. Fraser wants to conform to whatever is required, but does
not want to be a "test' case,
Development Review Board Meeting July 6, 1981 Page 6
Mr. Eslick asked how Mr. Fraser was going to plan his houses on the site in view of
A the requirement for a gravity Flow sewer. Mr. Fraser responded that he did not know
at this point, but if a pump were allowed there would be no problem.
Mr. Novak asked who would maintain the road (driveway) and pay the taxes on the road.
Mr. Galante explained that the tax lot containing the easement would pay taxes on it
and maintain it, hut it could be a shared responslbii'ity with the other lots through
deed restriction.
Ms. "Mastrantonio-JMeuser regarded the hardship requirement as being met due to the
topography,
A discussion on the criteria for a variance, specifically that or hardship followed,
Mr. Lanton read the criteria for clarification, Mr. Clarke pointed out that hardship
could be allowed due to the shape of the lot, and that without the variance the appli-
cant could not get the economic benefit otherwise.
Mr. Bonney reminded the Board that they halve approved flag lots in other parts or the
City, and that was usually done if there were similar lots in the area,
Mr, Eslick noted that he had problems on the design of the buildings in the back lots
because of the gravity flow sewer requirement.
Ms. Henick asked to go on record that it is generally a problem when the Board must
consider these requests when they have so many reconmrendations and conditions applied,
and in this case there will be even more as the additional variances are requested.
Ms. Henick moved for denial of the request based on the fact that the hardship has
not been demonstrated by the applicant. Ms. Nishimura seconded the motion, and it
passed unanimously.
Mr. Eslick asked to go on record that if this piece of property is considered again,
he would like to see the design of the homes planned for the site,
Recess. was called from 10:20 to 10:30 p.m.
VAR 14-81 (Brian and Brenda Tracy) -- To consider a request by Brian and Brenda Treacy
for approval of a variance to allow the construction of solar room and deck which
would infringe into the required 25-foot rear yard setback by 14.5 feet. The setback
would then be 10.5 feet. The property is located at 3100 Edgemont Road. (Tax Lots
203 and 204, Tax, Map 2 1E 8AC)
Ms. Mastrantonlo-Mouser presented the staff report.
Brian Treacy, applicant, presented drawings of his proposal to the Board and eitp,<tined
that there is a dilapidated porch on the home and he wants to put a foundation under
it. The grade will have to be lowered for most of the basement addition. The height
of the deck at the southern boundary line will be 8 feet, This is the only way to
build on to get benefit of the sun.
Opposition
4 None.
- a this a Mr. Bonneyfelt that because of thetopography hi pp1ication would fulfill the
hardship requirement,
.... .. ...... Ate
Development Review Board Meeting July 6, 1981 Page
Mr. Clarke moved for approval with the staff conditions applying. Ms. Nish'mura seconded
41, the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Mr. Eslick asked to go an record that the drawings should be more complete, and in
this case it concerned the foundation of the addition
DR 3-81 (Thomas and Marilyn Wisherop) -- To consider a request by Thomas and Marilyn
Wisherop for preliminary and final approval to allow the construction of a duplex at
the northeast end of boones Way (Tax Lot 306 of Tax Mat, 2 1E 8BA) ,
Robert Galante presented the staff report, He explained that all of the staff recom-
mendations had been addressed by the applicant with the exception of 1/E4, regarding a
grading plan.
Rohl Chauhanr appiIcant's representative, assured the Board that every recommendatifir,
of the staff would be followed•
Mr. Eslick asked how the occupants would get to the lawn area in the back, as the plan
does riot show a door, Mr. Chauhan responded that there will be steps from the deck,
and a walkway can also be placed along the sides of the building, leading from the
front to the back. Hose bibs will be provided for watering the yards, Solar applicant
tion Is limited In this area. The owner wi l l occupy one unit.
Opposition
None.
4 Mr. Bonney felt the second unit was higher than necessary, Mr. Chauhan replied that
they want to keep the driveway grade at 10 >
Mr. Eslick moved for approval with staff recommendations #3 and //G, and 1/5 applying,
and adding a condition that access to the lawn area be added to the plan. Ms. Nishirnura')
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
DR 7-81 (Joel Neuschwander) -^ To consider a request for final Design Review approval
by Joel Neuschwander t.o allow the construction of a warehouse and office building at
5700 and 5800 SW Willow Lane (Tax Map' 2 IE 18Bp Tax Lots 2000 arid 2100) +
Kr. Galante presented the staff report, and showed the circulation plan the enginacring
staff proposed for proper circuiation, He described the possible problems of large
trucks turning in projects similar to this one where access is restricted. He showed
the applicant's plan which was developed to satisfy the conditions of the preliminary
approval. Mr. Galante noted that the police Department prefers two accesses for the
site.
Darrel Kraxberger, architect) clarified that the first three conditions are being
addressed, and there will be no problems. With reference to the fourth condition)
he presented a drawing showing the turning radius for a 55 ft. truck, and emphasized.
that large trucks wili rarely be on the property, and fait that space should not be
sacrificed in order to accommodate them. He feels that security would be better
without the two accesses) and the lighting will be adequate for safety, also. The
mechanical units will be concealed. Mr. Eslick commented on the change in the
Allik planter areas, Mr. Kraxberger explained that the sidewalk was removed) as it
seemed unnecessary, and more landscaping was added.
Development Review Board Meeting July 6, 1981 Page '$
Lake Westphal , 3505 Halsey, S.E. , Salem, owner of 5080 Willow, asked for clarification
on the City' s policy in applying right-of-way demands when his property is developed.
�J Mr. Galante clarified what the procedure would be and what the requirements for an
industrial Zone are.
Opposition
None.
Mr. Bonney remarked that he had not attended the preliminary hearing,, but did not feel
that the two accesses were necessary. Ms. Henick suggested the lighting be changed
to high pressure sodium of the same intensity instead' of the mercury vapor lights on
the plan. She maintained that this type lighting is much more efficient for security.
Ms. Henick moved for approval with the original conditions 1 , 2 and f , and recommends
Lions 1 , 2, and 3, and the,addition of a condition to revise the Iighting plan 4a In-
clude high pressure sodium lights to staff's satisfaction, The motion was seconded
and passed unanimously.
DR 8-81 (Roy Monta,gue and August Kollom) -- to consider a request by Roy Montague and
August Kollom for preliminary and final approval to allow consttruction of a 7900 square
foot light manufacturing plant located on the south side of Wi i low Lane (Tax Lot 2200
of Tax Map 2 lE 18BD)
Robert Galante presented the staff report.
Jim Zachrison, engineer, stated the owners and builder concur with the staff conditions,
A The type of work to be done on the site will be small metal parts manufacturing. Most
IOW of the material will be shipped via UPS, The ot'ner would like to make one revision
on the plan, and that is to edd windows on the southeast side, of the building in the
warehouse area. The office would stay as shown. The windows would be of fixed glass,
Mr. Eslick suggested sky lights as a better alternative for giving natural light to
the building. Mr. Bonney asked about a possible noise factor, but was assured by the
applicant that this need not be a consideration as a normal conversation can be held
while the manufacturing is being done. The mechanical units consist of radiant heat
in the ceiling; in the warehouse, and a natural gas heater for the oP"fice area, which
will be within the building.
Mr. Eslick questioned the wainscoating approach. He would prefer all concrete or at
least not a half-and-half use of concrete and metal siding.
Opposition
None,
Mr. Zachrisen explained that the placement of the transformer has not been worked out
yet with PGE. Mr. Eslick questioned the use of three different types of lighting,
Mr. Galante explained that since the sign is in the landscaping, it would have to
have a variance.
The applicant presented the drawings ' for the new window concept. The Board and staff
concurred that this was not an acceptable plan, and not compatible with structures on
each side of the site. The applicant stated that he Would be willing to put in sky
lights, if that would be more satisfactory.
Development Review Board Meeting July 6, 1981 Page 9
Mr. Eslick moved for preliminary approval with recommendations of staff, 1 through 8
applying, and the additional condition that the exterior of the building with regard
An to the wainscoating and windows be revised. Mr. Bonney and Mr. Eslick suggested an
loir all concrete block building be considered.
The motion was seconded, and passed unanimously,
OTHER BUSINESS
Findings for VAR 9-81 were approved.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12;22 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
4
Beverly E. s 'aghi lGl .
Secretary
I
I
I
I
I
iii.
I
I
I
I
I
I'
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING JULY 20, 1981 PAGE 1
The Development Review Board Meeting of July 20, 1981 was called to order at 8:18 p.m.
(the start of the meeting was delayed while awaiting the fourth member of the Board to
aarrive in order to have a quorum) . Development Review Board members present were: Bede
r Nishimura, Robert Bonney (Chairman) , Lang Bates and Shirley Petrie. Absent were; Frank
Clarke, Richard 'Eslick, and Joan Henick. Staff members present were: Robert Galante;
City Planner; Lori Mastrantonio-Mouser, City Planner; AI, x Arseniev, Assistant City Eng-
ineer; and Beverly Coghill , Secretary,
APPROVAL OF JULY 6, 1981 MEETING MINUTES I
Approval of the July 6, 1981 minutes was tabled so that the Board could study them, as
they had not been received until tonight' s meeting,
PETITIONS 6 COMMUNICATIONS
DR 31-80 (Lakewood Center) - To consider a request by Lakewood Center for approval or
a revised construction schedule for the Lakewood Center located at 368 State Street
(Tax Lots 101100, i0200, 10300 of Tax Map 2 iE 0AD)
Robert Galante presented the staff report, explaining that the applicant has asked for
180 days after the building permits are issued, for completion of construction. Mr.
Galante clarified that the City needs a schedule for some amount of paved parking to
meet the requirements of the tenants that are presently occupying the building. Exhibit
"'L" contains the paving schedule submitted by the applicant+
Michael Dexter, 17750 Leafy Lane., applicant, feels there is a miscommunication on the
paving. The applicant feels that the existing paving in the schooi parking lot would
be acceptable. Mr. Galante pointed out that this area does not have paved access and
III this is required. Ms. Dexter explained that there is a gravel access, and they are
waiting for more funds to proceed on the paving. Mr. Galante reed the coda require-
ments, and that stressed the schedule for completion of the paving must be addressed
prior to the rainy season.
Mr. Bates understood the request to require a breakdown on whether the existing parking
is adequate for businesses that are occupying the structure now. Mr. Bates moved to
table the action on the schedule until the next meeting so staff and the applicant can
resolve what Is being asked by the City. Ms. Nishimura seconded the motion, which
passed unanimously.
DR 20-80 (City of Lake Oswego) r To consider a request by the City of Lake Oswego for
modifications to already approved plans to allow a change in roofing color (from Red to
Blue) for the Palisades Pump Station located at Cloverleaf Road adjacent to Lakcridge
High School property (Tax Lot 10600 of Tax Map 2 1E l6BC) ,
Robert Galante presented the staff report, color board, and new sample of requested
building material in blue. Ms. Petrie moved for approval of the request. The motion
was seconded and passed unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DR 1+079 (Mercantile Village) To consider a request by Ron Timmerman for modifications
to already approved plans for Mercantile Village to allow the construction of a driver
up window for a restaurant, to allow a trash compactor structure to be erected, and to
allow the regrading of the berm along Kruse Way near the Intersection at. Boones Ferry
Road (Tax Map 2 1E 8BA) .
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING JULY 20, 1981 PAGE 2
Robert Galante presented the staff report. He showed the reduction of the berm on the
4 plan. The existing berm is 15 to 20 percent grade, and is maintained by the City, as
part of it is in the right-of-way. The drive-up window is to access a Burger King rest-
aurant in Building A. The design acceptable to staff is not acceptable to the Burger
King chain. The plan the applicant now wants reverses the recommendation for approval
by staff. Mr. Galante presented the applicantrs pion, and explained the access of this'
7-11 Store in relation to the request. Staff has no problem with the directional sign'
for the drive-up window,
I, Ron Tinmrerman, 2351 SW Palisades Crest Drive, applicant , reviewed the three items as
follows:
1 . Trash Compactor, will blend into the rest of the project, and be more sui tcrblo
than the separate trash collection stations previously approved.
2, The Berm, will be more attractive because it will be maintained better, and
will be landscaped at the top to add the desired height, and will be serviced
by anunderground irrigation system. In addition to new landscaping with
shrubs, the lawn will be replaced. Now the slope of the berm is too steep
to maintain' easily. The shrubs suggested for the top of the berm aro compact
3-feet-high specimens Mr. Bates suggested "crowning" the berm with additional
material.,
3. Br rer King, will be within bul lding (A) . Mr. Timmerman reviewed the plan
they have proposed. lie contends the impact of traffic on Collins will be very
slight, coming at off-hours for traffic voiume on Boones Ferry Read. He re-
ferred to Cart Butke' s traffic study to substantiate his appeal . The appli-
cant is asking for a right-hand-only turn onto Boones Perry. Mr. Bates asked
if the traffic engineer had reviewed both plans. Mr. Galante said that It
had not been fully reviewed since this plan was presented too late for that.
Ms. Petrie asked If the 16 spaces designated for employees wore eliminated,
would there still he enough parking to satisfy the code. Mr. Timmerman re-
sponded that there would be adequate parking. It can be re-addressed when
the multi-family project is developed.
Mr. Galante specified that if the 16 spaces are approved, the lot should be
designed and landscaped to conform to the City codes.
Mr. Bonney was concerned about a stacking problem at the drive-up window.
Mr. Titnntermen assured him that the length of the building would suffice to
handle the stacking,
Opposition,
None,
M . Arseniev stated that the City has experienced poor results from right-turn-only
lanes, and unless absolutely necessary would not approve them. lie used the JoJo's
exit in the same area as an example. Many alternatives for the drive-up window were
discussed, with no concensus on how it should be handled.
Ash Ms. Petrie moved for approval of the trash compactor. The motion was seconded and
passed unanimously,
Ms. Petrie moved to approve the reduction of the berm, with final review by the staff
to include their approval of the landscaping plans. The crown of the berm Is to be
. K
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING JULY 20, 1981 PAGE 3
11 raised if possible. If staff has questions on this item, they are to bring it back for
IIF review by the Board, The motion was seconded and passed unanimously,
Rebuttal (Burger King item)
Mr. Timmerman stated that the staff has reviewed the 'Burger King plan for six months,
and it was not just brought in today, as this was the orininal Plan,
The Beard over-ruled staff in allowing en access at Collins, and Mr. Timmerman feels
staff is "trying to get their way" now. Mr, Bonney reminded him that the street was
considered for overflow use, and at that time there was no thought of using It for a
drive-through window for a fast food. faciiity, Mr. Bates declared that he would prefer`
to consider the issue if the City Engineer or Traffic Engineer were In attendance, Mr,
Galante offered to supplyreports and other documents in support of the City's stand.
He suggested that the Traffic Engineer supply a report illustrrting the impact on Boonas
Ferry Road, if this request is approved.
As. Petrie moved for approval of the 16 parking spaces for employees, and that this is
to be reviewed again when the multi-family development takes place. The motion was
seconded an0 passed. unanimously. Ms. Petrie moved for approval of the drive-up window
as requested by applicant on Exhibit "H". There was no second,
Mr. Bates moved to table the issue of the Burger King drive-up window, and to have it
brought back with documentation of the, impact on Boones Ferry React, end with a new
analysis including reports from the Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer. The motion
was seconded. All Board members voted in favor of the motion except Ms, Petrie, who
Ilp abstained.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
To consider a request byMr, and Mrs. Wes Lematta
8 Mr. and. Mrs. Wes Lematta) n
VAR 12 i �
. for approval of a variance to allow the creation of two lots without road frontage.
The applicant proposes a 21 .5-foot wide easement for access to the two rear lots, In
addition, approval of a variance to reduce the required 10-foot side yard setback to
3.5 feet on the proposed parcel which contains the existing single-family dwelling,
r The applicant proposes to divide the developed lot located on the east side of Palisades
Terrace Drive into a total of three parcels (Tax Lots 1900 and 3100, Tax Map 2 IC 10C13) .
Lori Mastrantonlo-Meuser presented the staff report, clarifying that, the setback for
the side yard had been advertised as 3.5 feet, but it is 6 feet. She reviewed action
by the Planning Commission on this item, and that they had tabled it until the Develop-
ment Review Board had judged the variances. She read the conditions of approval recom
mended by staff from the Planning Commission' s staff report. A survey has been provided
(Exhibit "0") , which was passed to the Board for examination. Mr. Bonney asked Mr.
Arsentev If the access proposed to Site B was acceptable, Mr. Arseniev responded that
due to the terrain it would not be without problems, but would be acceptable, He re-
ported that at the Planning Commission meeting, one of the neighbors suggested the
access be placed on the other side of the property.,
Ormond Bean, apja,licant's , representative, described the considerable time and thought
that have gone into the project by his clients. He feels there is an error on the
Topographic Map on the east side of the property, as It is physically impossible to
IMP provide access on that side. Even if this could be done, it would mean removing many
trees. in the configuration proposed, only two large trees would be removed, The
slope for the easement road as proposed, will not b:t a problem, The opposition's
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING JULY 20, aesi PAGE h
statement at the Planning Commission meeting that the sewer was put in in such a way to
4 save the trees is not true, but it was done that particular way in order to allow for
gravity flow. It is a good use of the land to use the existing easement for the access
road. The survey map will, show that gravity flow sewers are possible for the site, The
Cassarno's will probably not even see the two houses proposed, Most of the vegetation
will be left on the site, The applicant agrees with the conditions of the staff report ,
with the exception of the installation of the street light. Mr. Arseniev explained that
since this Is a three-house subdivision, the Traffic Engineer asked for the street light
for safety reasons.
Wes Lematta, applicant, emphasized that this 2-acre parcel can easily support three houses,
and still stay Within the zoning requirements, Mr, Bates asked what the grade was for
the road. The applicant felt it would not exceed 10%.
Opposition
Joe Glaze, attorney, placed a site plan on the wall for review, He reminded the Board
that the applicant will not hove to live with the impact of the partition, as he is'
residing on other property. Mr. Glaze read documentation from the City Codes and
Comprehensive Plan regarding views, and impacts on neighborhoods. lie stressed that
the buffering will not be the same, no matter what the applicant uses for landscaping,
He was informed by the Cassarno's that the sewer alignment was made in a particular
configuration in order to save 'trees, and these trees will now be sacrificed. There
is a 3A to 35 foot strip oi' land between the Cassarno's pool house and tine existing
house, and with an casement placed between, they will be too close. If the easement
was placed on the east side, the privacy of his client could be preserved, and the male
shows the same slope. The Cassarno's want to protect their view. Page 52 of the
410 Comprehensive Plan states that the livability of existing neighborhoods is to be Pre-
served, Mr. Glaze presented photographs (Exhibit D) taken from the deck of his clients'
house showing existing vegetation that will be removed with the approval of this re-
quest.
Ms. Petrie noted that much has been made of the proximity of the pool house, but asked
how far the Cassarno' s house was from the easement. Mr. Glaze could not be specific
on this point, but referred to an aerial view of the site, and the fact that their lot
(Lot 2000) is. 1.2 acres. With the addition of 2 houses on the site, the traffic genet
ation will be increased by 20 trips a day.
Rebuttal
Mr. Bean noted that there will be 60 feet between the Cassarno's house and the next house
to be built, and the pool house will act as a buffer. He reiterated his argument re-
garding the loss of trees.
A discussion on the street light followed, with explanation from Mr. Arseniev that the
City would maintain it after it was Installed. Mr. Bonney questioned the grade of the
easement, and the retaining walls. Mr. Galante suggested adding a condition that the
slope not exceed 15%
Ms. Petrie moved for approval of the variance, with conditions of the Planning Commission
staff report applying, and adding that a 15% grade for the easement rood not be exceeded,
If this is not possible, it is to be brought back to the Board for review, Mr. Bates
AK asked that a cross-section between the properties, and the proposed iandseape plan be
presented under Unfinished' Business at the next meeting, as an addendum to the motion.
The, motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
A recess was called from 9 ISO to 9:50 p.m.
DEVELOPMENT REViEW BOARD MEETING JULY 20, 1981 PAGE 5
DR 9-01 (Christie School) To consider a request by Christie School for preliminary
Alh and d final approval to allow construction of an 1152 square foot classroom structure
lor located on the Marylhurst Campus (Tax Lot 200 of Tax Map 2 1E 14) .
Robert Galante presented the staff report.
Mr. Bates questioned the lighting, and Mr. Galante responded that none was planned,
except for a porch light, and that no landscaping is proposed within the property be"
cause of the vandalism problem.
Jerry Zaslow, Executive,Director for Christie School , answered questions front the Dottrd
regarding the lighting, fence and heating for the unit. Me explained that the staff
report outlined the proposal very well
osi tlon - None.
Mr. pates moved for approval with conditions as outlined in the recommendations of the
staff report. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
DR 10-81 (Bankers Investment Corporation) - To consider a request by Bankers investment
Corporation for preliminary and final Design Review approval to allow construction of a
22,000 square foot Professional Medical Building located at the northwest corner of Kerr
Parkway and McNary Parkway and bordered on the north by Becket Drive (Tax Lot 57, Mult-
nomah County Tax Map 11225) ,
Lori Mastrantonlo-Mouser presented the staff report, explaininq that new drawings of
the north elevation had been presented, but staff has not had an opportunity to review
them. She listed the other items that have been submitted, but explained that staff
only received them today and had not yet reviewed them.
Phil deFreest, #2 Touchstone, feels they have submitted all the material staff has asked
for', and will do anything else necessary in order to get the project through Development
Review. They hope to get started on construction before bad weather starts.
The Board reviewed the new plans and color board. The parking lot configuration allows
for 37 standard and 47 compact cars. Mr. Bonney expressed concern on the access at
Becket. Mr. Galante clarified that the main access would be at McNary, The City feels
two accesses are acceptable and desired. Mr. Bates felt there was not enough relief
from the asphalt In the parking area. The applicant replied that the new landscape
plan should take care of the problem. There was little area in the parking lot for
pedestrian traffic because it is a small lot and this did not seem necessary, according
to the applicant. They are willing to conform to the 50/5(1 compact car ratio. Mr.
Galante reviewed the parking requirenments, and illustrated that it is. 84 spaces, which
Is what they have provided, The mechanical units are on the roof, and they are screened,
Mr. Bates asked about thr drainage along the north facade. Mr. deFreest reported that
Mt. Park Home Owners As=iociation did not want the sidewalk along Becket, but they have
approved everything else. They have not seen the landscape plan yet. Mr. BonnaY sug-
gested a iitter of approval from them, for the record. A different sign
the City `get
rrr� a
buteach doctors name will be on the
plan will be submitted, Exhibit I is similar,.
sign, which will be placed at the corner of Mctlary & Kerr. The plan shows a sign at
Becket also, but this will not be on the new plan.
A discussion on the various items needed for final approval followed.
Linda Potter, landscape architect, explained the landscape plan;, and the use of wax
myrtle along the residential side of the site. Ms. Patter clarifie'd that existing
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING JULY 20, 1981 PAGE 6
vegetation will be preserved if it is "quality" material , and fits In with the desired
Ali look. Lori ' Mastrantonio-Meuser passed the tree survey for the Board.'s review, Mr.
Inv Galante explained that if more Standard cars were allowed in the parking lot, the land-
scaping would have to be reduced further.
Opposition
Bob Whitcomb, 45 Becket, owns property adjacent to the site, and Is concerned that his
view will become one of blacktop. The vegetation on the lots now afford good screeninq. '
With the',removal of the vegetation, he will lose, noise protection, in addition he stated
that this is a very dangerous intersection becauso there is no traffic control . The
traffic pattern will be effected because cars will be turning into the facility and
traffic controls should be placed at the intersections. He does not feel the color of
siding chosen is compatible to the neighborhood, as it is too stark. A cedar stain
would be more appropriate. He would prefer a taller plant than the wax myrtle proposed
as a buffer.
Rebuttal
The property of Mr. Whitcomb is `totally clear of landscaping on the side adjacent to
the proposed medicai facility, and Mr. deFreest suggested he put some of landscapIng'
there..
_Mr. Bates moved for preliminary approval of the request with the following Items to he
addressed before final approval can be considered,
1 . The amount of asphalt in the area for the parking lot should be redesigned
tipby breaking up the asphalt so more Interest and use 'of pathways can be added.
2. The drainage issue in the north, area should be addressed,
3. The signs should be presented .in the final format.
4. Lighting plans for the site and on the building should be presented.
5. A revision of the parking for handicapped should be made, With the designited '
parking closer to the buildings.
6. The color of the building should be revised to be compatible with the neigh-
borhood.
7. Additional buffering should be added for benefit of the neighbors, especially
, 'tailer growing plants' should be considered. This is needed especially' on
Kerr & McNary.
8. Screening of mechanical units on the roof should be shown on the plans,
9. Refuse collection areas and design should be shown on the plan.
10, Ail staff recommendations should be addressed.
11 . The new elevation on the north side is acceptable (Condition #6 of the staff
report) .
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
tJ
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD METING JULY 20, 1981 PAGE, 7
The applicant asked if he could be on the agenda for final approval at the next `meetlntlG ,, ,
Mr. Galante said he could not commit to that;.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12: 12, a,m,
Respectfully submitted,
Beverly E. oghi i lI(
Secretary
r'
I'i
1
... �H e�tit ' ,..sx.....-. s,,..ud.R, ,.. . .r*s 4ar4...:1. r,.tae....r:1', I ,�.. .Lnr..,..+. 7.,s9«.>t a,•...,,,.,y,4.n�w s.,.>rPr..1�.,.,...� Jew x.�.e. t
.. .. ..,.... ,. 4... . < 'few
I
,.
I
IIl
I
4\
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING AUGUST 3, 1981 PAGE 1
The Development Review Board Meeting of August 3, 1981 was called to order at 7:35 p.m,
• Development Review Board members present ware; Richard Eslick, Shirley Petrie, Lang
Bates (Vice-Chairman), Bede Nishimura, and Frank Clarke. Absent were; Robert Bonney
(Chairman) and Joan Henick. Staff members present were: Robert Galante, City Plan-
ner, and Beverly Coghill , Secretary.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 6 AND JULY 20, 1981
Mr. Eslick corrected the minutes of July 6, page 9, paragraph one, last line, Which
should state that different uses of materials and different proportions should be con-
sidered (not "all concrete building should be considered'i) . With that correction, Mr,
Eslick moved for apprpval of the minutes, The motion was seconded and passed unanimously,
Approval of the minutes of the July 20, 1981 sleeting was tabled until the next meeting,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None,
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DR 40-79 (Mercantile Village) -- To consider a request by Ron Timmerman for modifica-
tions to already approved plans for Mercantile Village to allow the construction of a
drive-up window for a restaurant. tlr. Galante presented the staff report, and reviewed
a traffic study done by Carl Buttke. This is an updated study which indicates that
approval or the drive-up window would generate an additional 15 trips at peak hour from
Collins to Boones Ferry Road (from 10 trips to 25) .
• Staff feeis that if the Board accepts these figures as accurate, the additional trips
are not significant enough to deny approval .
Ron Timmerman, 2351 SW Palisades Crest Drive, explained that he had received the report
Just this afternoon, so that is why it was not available for review before today. A
drawing of the circulation plan was presented (Exhibit AA) , Which Mr. Timmerman explained,
stating that staff had accepted this new plan, which returns the traffic from the drive
through aisle back through the parking lot.
Opposition - None.
Ms. Petrie moved for app roval of the request with the condition that a landscape plan and'
a dimensioned plan of the drive-up area be presented to staff for approval . The motion
was seconded and passed unanimously.
DR 2-80 Douglas Way Office Building Mr. Galante explained that this building had
been approved with conditions that require the Board to review a revised landscape •
plan, an irrigation plan and a revised sign. in addition, the applicant requests a
change in brick type for the building. The brick material' will match the adjacent
Mercantile Village structures.
Dennis Henninger, 425 2nd Street, reviewed the past request are aciion by the Board.
Opposition - None.
In response to Mr. Eslick's question regarding the type brick to be used, Mr. Henninger
IMF described the mortor being used as gray, which will fit in with the aggregate sidewalk.
• Mr. Eslick moved for approval of the request as Presented on the four items, The motion
Was seconded and passed unanimously,
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING AUGUST 3 1981 PAGE 2
SIGN APPROVALS
ODR 18.80 (Grandpa Don's Oid, Fashioned Sniokey Meat) Mr. Galante explained that this
`had to come before the Board due to the required 20-foot landscaped setbacks . Staff
believes this should be approved. The sign meets code requirements The building
is basically an
industrial shell of concrete with the office front in
dark cedar
siding,
The applicant was not in attendance. ,
Opposition None.
Mr. Eslick moved for approval of the sign with the condition that the sign color be
compatible with the office front to the satisfaction of staff,
A discussion on the lack of a color board being presented by the applicant followed,
with the Board concurring that they should not make exceptions ror the requirement
of a color and material board. The motion was withdrawn.
The applicant was directed to brine in a color and material board for' the sign, and
present the request at the next meeting for consideration under Unfinished Business.
Ms. Nishimura made a motion to this effect, which was seconded and passed;; unanimously,
Ms. Petrie wanted the applicant to know that the reason the request was not voted upon
tonight is because the application was incomplete without the color and material board.
OR 30-77 (Troy's Seafood Market) -- Mr. Galante reviewed past act.iOn on the sign request,
40 and presented the new sign concept. This will be a new sign on top of the old sign
Theround sign g
.feet 10 maximum area allowed for a .
post, with proportions of x 8
is 50 square feet. Since the sign for the restaurant (Walrus 6 the Carpenter) wilt
remain, the new sign should only be 35 square feet, unless the Board grants a variance
for the larger sign. Staff recommends the new sign be required to be no larger than
38 square feet. Mr. Galante described the sign as being plastic and internally Illumi-
nated. The restaurant sign is carved in wood.
Bob 'Kaplan, 14922 SW Gladstone, Portland, applicant's representative, maintained that
his client does not feel the present sign iS effective. The new sign will have steel
posts for support unless the Board wishes to keep the posts wood. Mr. Kaplan reviewed
the chronology of the past sign request, and reminded the Board that these are two
entirely separate businesses, but the building is owned by one person.
Opposition hone..
Mr. Eslick stated that he was bothered by the incompatibility of the two signs, and
the over-large sign being requested by Troy's. The metal and plastic material are
out of character for the site. Mr. Bates agreed with this conclusion, Mr. Eslick
moved for denial of the sign as presented, due to the fact that it, would have to
have a size variance, and that the character of the requested sign is not compatible
with the existing sign or site. Mr. Clarke seconded the motion, which passed uneni-
mously.
Shelter Properties , South Shore Branch, Office -- Mr. Galante reported that there was
no co or or meter a oar( presente . or tih7s request. Mr. Galante described the sign
as being k feet x 5 feet 4 inches, and placed on a wall . A wall sign can only be 2
feet high unless approved otherwise by the Board.
{
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING AUGUST 3, 1981 PAGE 3
Mike Graeper, President of,Shelter Properties, indicated that this sign serves to re-
Ask place the old company logo, and that it is now in place. He Was unaware that the new
IIP sign would need approval , it is flush mounted and illuminated In the, same manner as
the original sign. He noted that the facia of the building will be painted off-white,
and the sign is plastic with the lettering done in 'process blue." it Is the same
sign that was on the West Linn building of Shelter Properties.
Opposition
Ms. Nishimura moved for approval of the sign with the condition that a color board
or color photo of the sign be submitted to staff for approval . The motion was seconded
and passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VAR 15-81 (I .M,O. Holldings) -- A request by 1 .1'1,0, Holdings for a variance; to increase
theheight of a fence from three and one-half feet to seven feet. The site is located
at 1188 Cherry Circle. (Tax Lot 7100 of Tax Map 2 1E 15AB) .
Robert Galante presented the staff report, reading from the Findings for further update.
He offered a letter of opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Rudolph Stevens, '1099 Cherry Circle
strongly resisting the 7-foot fence. Mr. Galante showed the Board the new plan using
wrought iron for the 7-foot fence (Exhibit "'B")
Mr._Boxendale, 613 SW Alder, Portland, reviewed past action and told the Board the
background of the applicant and his reasons for the requested fence.
Mr. Bates asked for clarification on the reasoning for a 7-foot fence, when the original
request was for a 6-foot fence.
Doug 'Dennison, 18910 'Terry, contended that the owner has asked for a 7-foot fence of
wrought iron. He reiterated the plans for the existing arborvitae which will be planted
pgainst the fence. The footings will not be exposed. The lighting fixtures will match
those on the house, and the gates swing to the inside.
Lajas Balogh, 1199 Cherry Circle, declared that at the last public hearing on this
item he Was opposed to the request, but now approves of the use of wrought iron for
the fence. He wishes to go on record that he appreciates the concern of the applicant
for the feelings of the neighbors. He is concerned, however, that the columns seem
too bulky, and perhaps reinforced metal posts Would be more acceptable. He is not
opposed to the 7-foot fence in this material , but feels that 6 feet would be better.
Mr. Dennison claimed that the columns wili look better when they are painted, and
that the gates weigh 800 pounds $o they need the support of the columns. The posts
are 6 feet and there will be 4 inches of brick atop that, along with the light fixtures
in the entryway. The wrought iron is a straight design, and not a spiral , and will
be black In color.
Opposition None
Mr. Galante suggested the City Engineer review the type and intensity of the lights
planned for use on the columns. The applicant contended they Will be a decorative
flame-type bulb with an intensity of 40 watts. Mr. Eslick expressed concern on the
4 detail of the Wrought iron, suggesting the horizontal support be placed away from
the end and below the post.
{
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING AUGUST 3, 1981 PAGE 4
II, the
Petrie moved for approval of the variance with the condition that the height of
the top horizontal be lowered to below 6 feet and that the existing block base be re-
moved. A detailed dimensioned drawing showing the configuration of the fence and
how it intersects with the columns is to be presented to staff to their satisfaction.
The 7-foot wrought iron Is .acceptable. The motion was seconded. All Board members
voted in Favor with the exception of Ms. Nishimura who voted no.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Galante presented the following Findings for approval
DR 12-81 - The names are incorrect indicating ayes and noes. With that correction
(Mr. Galante will refer to the file for correction) , the Findings were approved,
DR 10-81 There were a number of corrections to be madet
Hearing - on the second line, the date of the staff report is missing
Criteria and Standards - first line, 'should state "Within yards", not ''with yards;"
Conclusions - second Tine, says l'hardships", and should be "hardship";
- second; page, line 4, should say "located," not "requestedi "
The ayes and noes will be checked for accuracy on this document.
VAR 10-81 ; VAR 11-81 ; VAR 13-81; VAR-14-81_ were all approved.
VAR 12-81 the word discrepancy on the last page is spelled incorrectly; these
Findiigs were approved, and wilt be corrected.
e ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 912 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
4:444.,/t. 27 2effBeverly E.. oghi l l
Secretary
•
I
I
I
I
1 / ,
I
14,
I
I
I I
l
. .... n....—«A,,.. ,�.,,,,r2,,,,« ..,. ,,:�. ,,,,'«.e..cti � ,.�,ar k�aev.� ,...w, .,r w,.' a4w1.1.,Se1w4+1.1a0.4 ni,«it>,<wuatd* "m..aseNw.,,,'C G, �iik**-...),sr.'9�.._._,,v+,uza�i ,A. n . ,iIri+
{
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING AUGUST 17, 1981 PAGE 1
The development Review Board meeting of August 17, 1981 wa;, called to order at
.0 7:40 p.m, Development Review Board members present were: Richard Eslick, Bede
Nishimura, Shirley Petrie, Lang Bates, and Robert Bonney (Chairman) . Absent were:
Joan Henick and Frank Clarke. Staff members present were: Robert Galante; City
Planner; Alex Arseniev, Assistant City Engineer; Mark Pillled, Deputy City Attarnry,
and Beverly Coghill , Secretary.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 20 and AUGUST 3, 1881.
Mr. Bates moved for approval of the July 20, 1981 minutes. The motion was seconded
and passed unanimously, without corrections.
The approval of minutes of August1981 was delayed until afterpublic hearings.
pP D 3, y hearings.
PETiTIONS AND COMMUNiCATIONS - None.
' Mr. Galante announced that the revised agenda tonight includes DR 8-81 He explained
that this item was added, however, proper time for advertising had not been allowed,
and if anybody wishes to have the, item withdrawn for that reason, it would be, He
pointed out that there had been no objection to the development at a prior hearing.
There Was no objection from the public to hearing the item.
Mr. Galante then introduced the new Deputy City Attorney, Mark Pillled, to the Board,
UNFiNISHED BUSINESS - None.
41,1 SIGN APPLICATIONS
The Shoe Tree in the Lake Oswego Shopping Center Is requesting a variance to the
sign code for an existing sign. Mr, Galante presented a photo of the sign, explain-
ing that it will be on the building a few doors from the original site. According
to code it should be 10 feet from the ground, and this sign Will be 7 feet. Staff
feels there is no problem in allowing the variance. Mr. Eslick asked if other
tenants had signs as low as 7 feet from the ground. Mr. Galante responded that
they do.
Jill Plattner, 908 Cumberland applicant, described the fire that took place in.
May, and that they have changed locations within the building. This is the same
sign they had before, and there had been no problems with it interfering with
safety of the public,
Opposition None.
Ms. Petrie moved for approval of the sign variance. The motion was seconded and
passed unanimously. .
PUBLIC HEARINGS
...�...�
DR 11-81 (North Shore Development Corroration - Galen Court) -- To consider a re-
quest by North shore Development Corroratlon (Galen Court) for preliminary and
final design review apt:rove1 for 16 zero-lot-line TownhouSes (32 units) located
on 4.8 acres on the west side of Peters Road at the east end of Galen Street (Tax
411) Lot 400 of Tax Map 2 1C 6AA).
r
Development Review Board Meeting August 17, 1961 PACE 2
Mr. Galante presented the staff report. The roofing material has been changed to
a composition material . Mr. Bonney asked for clarification on whether the Board
is being asked to review Phase 1 and Phase 2 tonight, or ,just Phase 1 . Mr. Galante
4 responded that both phases are to be considered, and that the developer hopes to
develop Phase 2 to reflect the marketability of the units in Phase 1 . Mr. Bates
asked if Peters Road will be improved, and Mr. Arseniev responded that this will
be done later, when further development takes place on that 'road. Mr. Eslick
R asked if the turn-around on the site had been approved by the City, Mr, Galante
replied that it had been approved. Mr, Bates asked how many trees will be cut.
Mr. Galante presented the tree survey (Exhibit G) in response. Mr. BBonney questioned
the location of storm lines . Mr. Arseniev clarified their location . Mr. Eslick
noted that there was not a lighting plan, and Mr. Galante referred to the utility
plan, stating that there was a note on that plan, but this did not meet City standards
and will have to be revised.. All utilities and improvements, will be put in during
Phase 1 .
CDon Schollander, 1131 North Shore Road applicant► reviewed the development. The
developer hopes to appeal to older residents of Lake Oswego. The building will
be of stucco and wood, The schedule for Phase 2 is uncertain because the developer
wishes to see what happens in Phase 1 before he plans the final configuration for
Phase 2. Aill utilities and improvements will be put in.
Ralph Tahran, Otak and Associates, appealed for flexibility, and wants to get started
on the six units of Phase 1 He presented the revised development schedule (Exhibit
X) . The Planning Commission approved 32 units, but the Comprehensive Plan would
allow 42. This is zero-lot-line housing. The builder is looking at 'this as a
single-family residential development, and not as condominiums. Therefore, he
is appealing for more flexibility in placing the units (A, B, & C) as they are
41111 requested by the public, and as the lots can accommodate them. The conditions of
approval were acceptable to the developer, with the exception of %13. This will
, be overcome by proper lighting to staff's approval . They are trying to provide
a usable side yards and designed the entry courtyard for this purpose, The court
yard is not visible from the street. Soffit lighting will he provided, and entry-
way lighting will be provided. The photo-cell is acceptable. Also, Il7 does not
apply, as the garbage can storage will be within the garage. Referring to I/B, the
construction will take place off Peters Road. Condition C19 has been addressed by
tonight' s presentation of Exhibit X. Referring to the question on the turning
radius, this meets City Code,
Some changes the developer is asking is 1 . A change in roofing material to
heatherwood colored "S
h n9le: � which isa composition
osition shingle. A
sample
le of the i
roofing was presented. 2. The sloped glass area for the dining nook In Unit A
is expected to be too hot in the summer and will be eliminated. He presented a'
revised elevation of Unit A (Exhibit M-1) . 3. They wish to change the entry
overhang on the side area of Unit C. The redesign shows the covered area "pulled
back" (Exhibit R-1) . The change complies with the proposed setback. 4. The
Planning Commission has asked for a sidewalk on Suntree, and one on Galen. The
atvelOper does not agree that a sidewalk Is needed on Suntree. This will require
the removal of many large trees. The street is not heavily travelled. The de-
veloper is going to go to City Council with the request that the sidewalk he
eliminated, and would like some input from the Board on this in support. Mr.
Galante reminded the Board that they could not eliminate conditions of the Plan. ,
ning Commission, and the matter will have to go before the Council . Mr. Tehran
declared that the sidewalk 'issue had not been discussed In great detail by the
Ali Planning Commission. Mr. bates asked about signs, and the applicant responded
IMF there will be no signs -- lust house numbers. Mr. Bates questioned the absence
of the house colors on the material board. In answer to Mr. Bates' question on
location of the mail boxes, Mr. Tehran stated they would be a part of the fence
s. �a i r...?^ B a6
: .. .. ., '._.!
Development Review Board Meeting August 17, 1981 Page 3
detail . A question on the grading in the second phase was raised by Mr. Bates,
the plans do not accurately reflect all grade changes. Mr. Tehran could not be
41110 specific on 'this point until they can determine what leeway they will be allowed
1. in the types of units that will be placed upon the lots. A discussion on the
grading followed.
Ms. Nishimura noted that mailbox clustering will have to be provided, as 0 part
of the new postal service ruling. Mr. Bates felt that 'drainage toward the garage
door area will be a problem, and Mr. Tehran assured him that a drain would be
provided.
Mr. Eslick noted the absence of hose bibs on the plan. Mr. Ttrhran remarked that
this was an oversight, and they would be placed on the drawings. Mr. Eslick asked
about the lighting, and was told that this has been submitted. Mr. Eslick felt
that the homes planned for Peters Road might fit into the,prejee.t better if they
were turned around. Ms. Petrie asked if the trees on Phase 2 would remain until
would, except those removed to Place
e they1 x .
It was developed. Mr. Galante assured her W , ! !
the utilities and the road improvements. Mr. Eslick expressed his opinion that
future projects should be reviewed more thoroughly for necessity of sidewalks.
The Board concurred that In this case, a sidewalk on Suntree was not necessary.
Linda Potter, Landscape Architect, defined the project as being single-family in
nature, so it will be left up to the residents to landscape their own yards. The
developer will be restoring the site that has been disturbed by construction, and
placing street trees, and seeding the area with grass along the sidewalks and road-
ways. The remainder of the site will be seeded in wildflowers that wii.l reseed'
themselves. The street trees will go in after the houses are built,4111, '
Mr. Eslick noted that according to the plan, several of the driveways are "jogged"
and asked if this was to save trees. Ms. Potter concurred with the observation.
Nawzad Othman, Otak and Associates, summarized previous testimony. The developer
would have preferred planning just Phase 1 , but they were asked for an overall
site plan. He suggested that the Board should consider a preliminary and final approval
for Phase 1 and a preliminary approval of Phase 2. All the questions of the Board
could be addressed more intelligently after the first phase was marketed. He
appealed for the is,,1ue of the sidewalk elimination on Suntree.
Opposition None.
Mr. Bonney stated that he felt that Phase 1 should be considered for preliminary
and final approval , and Phase 2 for preliminary.
Ms. Nishimura noted that there are only 15 days apart on the construction schedules
from the first and second phase, and questioned what the developer could learn
regarding marketing, desireability of a particular unit, etc. , in that time span.
Mr, Eslick observed that the applicant should have presented the changes desired
before tonight' s meeting, so they could be evaluated better; i .e. , the changes in
the windows.
Mr. Galante summarized the changes asked for tonight.
Mr. Eslick moved for preliminary and final approval of Phase 1 , with conditions
Amk 1 through 9 applying; with the modifications of the roofing' material , as presented,
Development Review Board Meeting August 17, 1981 Page 4
and the greenhouse windows on Units A and C modified to standard window sashes.
In addition, the modification of the dimension of the units, and elevations to meat
411,1 with the setbacks is approved. The mail box locations shall be indicated to staffs
satisfaction. Ms. Petrie asked to eliminate; the condition regarding the screening
for garbage cans, since they will be placed inside the garages (//7) . Mr. Galante
pointed out that Conditions 4 and 9 apply to Phase 2, so could be eliminated in
this motion, (These conditions were removed from the motion) . Mr. Bates added
a condition that requires a color board, including an actual sample of the stucco
color t:o be submitted to staff for approval. Mr. Bonney added a condition that
requires a plan on the drainage around each of the buildings to be submitted for
approval by staff. Additionally, at no time during the development can any con-
struction work cross the stream bed. Tree cutting may only be done for road` Im-
provements and utilities in the Phase 2, area and a tree cutting plan illustrating
phasing should be submitted for approval of staff.
The motion was seconded, and passed unanimously.
Mr i:slick moved for preliminary approval of Phase 2, with all the conditions of
Phase 1 applying, including Conditions' l/tt and //9. Mr, Cslick suggested the de-
veloper consider re-siting some of the units on Peters Road, and the drainage and
surface water problems be addressed before bringing the request back to the Board
for final approval . Also, the finished grading should match the elevations of
the units placed upon the lots. Some of the units on Galen should be interchanged,
and the turn-around on Peters should be reconsidered. The courtyard areas could
be revised for security purposes. Mr. Bates seconded the motion, and It passed
unanimously. Mr. Galante asked for a separate tree cutting permit for each phase.
This can come back Under Unfinished Business, or be to the approval of staff.
Amok Mr. Bates moved for tree cutting permits for each phase, showing a plan for each
unit on the individual lots, to be submitted to staff for approval . Ms. Petrie
seconded the motion and it passed' unanim unanimously.
There was a ten minute recess at 9:50.
DR 12-81 (Douglas Kolberg, Montessori School) -- To consider a request by Douglas
Kolbertd for preliminary and final design review approval to allow construction of
a Montessori' School on approximately 0.6 acres of property located on the east
side of Highway 43, Just south of its intersection with Glenmorrie Road (Tax Lots
1100 and 1200 of Tax hap 2 1E' 14BB) .
Mr. Galante presented the staff report, explaining that additional drawings were
- lots which are north
brought in tonight by the applicant. The two single-family
of the site and. south of Glenmorrie will have a lot-line adjustment to make them
both 15,000 square feet, A color and material board was presented. Mr. Galante
reviewed the conditions, stating that /l3 has been submitted, but is not complete,
#4 has been submitted, and /10 has been submitted. A lot-line adjustment plan
was submitted this evening, and this shows that the two lots In question will
meet the required 15,004 square feet.
Mr. Bates asked if a plan for security had been submitted. Mr. Galante replied
that no one has expressed concern on this matter, and no plan had been submitted:
Masood Mien, applicant's representative, accepts all the conditions except the first
ill portion of /I3 referring to the 'siding. The school Will be set beck on the property,
so Will` not be highly visible from the street. The school is on a tight budget,
so would prefer to Use this less expensive siding, They will use earth tones if
required, however. As far as Mr. Mian has been able to determiner the school is
Development Review Board Meeting August 17, 1981 Page 5
not required to meet handicapped requirements.
41111 Mr. Galante referrincj to the Findings for CU 3-91 , clarified that the hours -of
operation of the school could be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Bates asked if
the design of the project might have to be altered if handicap requirements were
installed. Such items as exits, curb cuts, railings, concrete pads for ramps, etc. ,
could change the concept considerably. Mr, Mien contended that the Building De-
partment
had not made that requirement. Ms. Petrie asked if the plans presented
were the final plans. Mr, Mian responded that they don' t know yet what the iuilding
Department will require, so will submit revised plans when they know what is needed.
Ms. Nishimura questioned the lack of a rear elevation. Mr. 'Mlan stated that a new
landscape plan is being made, and will be forthcoming. There is a rear elevation
plan, but it is not in the file. He said the fence will be in a natural color and
material to match the building. Ms. Nishimura asked if the drainage ditch would `
be fenced as a safety factor for the smail children enroiied. Mr. Mien said there
were no pians for this as it was felt there was not a danger from the ditch. He
said the creek has water in the winter, but was not planned to be fenced, .as this
would detract from the open view. Mr. Mien emphasized that the children would be
kept in the play yard, but it would not be fenced. Ms. Nishimura questioned the
"no parking" area, and it was explained by Mr. Mien that this was for a drop-off
space for children being driven to the school . Mr. Bates noted the lack of a
handicapped parking area. Mr. Mien assured him one would be put in, if required. '
in response to Mr. Bates's question on location of signage, he said it Would be
on Pacific Highway, and at the entrance to the school . Mr. Galante stressed that
signage allowed for a Conditional Use is particularly restrictive and must be
submitted as a part of the application. Ms' Nishimura asked how the drop-box
screening would be treated, and Mr. Mian replied that it would be on a concrete
pad with fencing material matching the previously de' tribed fence placed around
it. Mr. Eslick suggested the overhang measure the same ali the way around the
' 41111 building, instead of being 2 feet on one side and 1 and 1/2 feet on another.
opposition
Ray Edwards, 2424 Glenmorrie Drive, expressed concern on Condition #4, and on the
drainage from Lot 79 ,which, would run onto his property. He Wants` assurance that
the lighting (Condition #5) will be compatible with the nearby residences. He
asked for proper screening from excess lighting and other intrusions. He pointed
out that Exhibit E (Landscape) is in error, as 1t shows a stand of trees that
do not exist. Mr. Eslick asked for his judgement on how deep the ditch water
would be in winter. Mr. Edwards responded that it would be approximately 1 foot
at the point nearest the play area,
Mr. Bates suggested the roadway be designed in such a way to catch the drainage
from the upper lots.
The Board concurred that there were too many problems remaining with the develop-
ment to grant a final approval . Mr. Galante stated the request could be tabled
until the next meeting without readvertising. Mr=. Bates moved to table the re-
quest until the next meeting (September 9, 1981) with the following conditions
applying;
1 . Conditions 1 through 10 of the staff report of August 6, 1981 be met.
2, That drainage addressed be worked out with staff on the project,
41oincluding the' two single-family lots.
Development Review Board Meeting August 17, 1981` Page 6
That property lines be drawn accurately.
4. That building codes be clarified and applied, especially regarding the ,
handicap requirements,
5 That signage be presented, including color, design, and location
6. That hose bibs and irrigation. plan be presented.
7. That lighting be indicated to the satisfaction of this Board, and be
planned so as to be properly screened from the neighbors.
8. Lot-line adjustments proposed are to meet the requirements of the
County Zoning and City' s Comprehensive Plan,
9 Security of the play area should be reconsidered, and safety of the
play area addressed.
10. That more detail on fencing be submitted.
11 . A revised color board is to be submitted.
12. A rear elevation is to be provided.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously•
The Chairman cautioned the applicant to make sure he comes back with all the items
completed as requested, and that he work closely with staff and the Building Depart-
4 ment in fulfilling these obligations.
DR 8-81 (Roy Montague and August Kollom) To consider a request by Roy Montague
and August Kollom for final approval to allow construction of a 7900 square foot
light manufacturing plant located on the south side of Willow Lane (Tax Lot 200
of Tax Map 2 1E 18BD)
w Mr. Galante presented the staff report, which is the same report submitted at the
first hearing on this matter, dated June 23, 1981 , and which received preliminary f/
approval on July 6.
Mr. Galante pointed out that Ili
.
1 . screening of the transformer has not been shown;
2. an irrigation plan has not been submitted;
3. site lighting has changed, and so has the fixture (this is not acceptable
to the Traffic Engineer because it does not provide cut-off of light) .
Otherwise the lighting plan is acceptable.
Staff recommends final' approval of the development with these items addressed and
recommendations 1 through 8 of the original staff report applying.
Jim Zachrison, applicant, stated that regarding the landscape plan, the transformer
has been located and screening will be provided. The lighting representative said
the fixture was adjustable for cut-off. The applicant does not feel that an
410 irrigation system will be necessary, as the plants will not need 'irrigation on a
regular basis after they are established. For, that reason, they do not wish to
Development Review Board Meeting August 17, 1981 Page 7
r_
submit an irrigation plan. Sky lights have been planned in place of the windows
in the warehouse area.
Mr. Eslick asked why the wainscoating dimension had not been changed, as suggested
by the Board. Mr. Bonney reflected that it was the hope of the Board to gain a
more attractive building by the suggestions at the previous meeting, and that even
a warehouse should be developed as attractively as possible.
Mr. Zachrison reported that he had not received a copy of previous testimony.
Ms. Petrie questioned the need for an irrigation system. Past„ projects were re-
viewed that have historically not been able to maiintain their landscaping without
an irrigation system.
Mr. Bates mentioned the front elevation, and the lack of intorest there because
of the material suggested for the building. .,Mr. Eslick asked for clarification
on the different types of lighting used within the project,
Mr. Eslick moved for final approval with the recommendations by staff applying as
indicated earlier in the presentation and in the staff report by Mr. Galante, with
modifications to the conditions as foilows ;
4. An in-ground irrigation system, with approval of staff;
5. Lighting be to the satisfaction of staff;
6. Planting of the alternative grass (Zoysia) beeliminated, and the first
choice (fescue, blue grass mixture) be applied.
410 The motion was seconded and passed unanimously,
MINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 1981 MEETING
Mr. Bates moved for approval of the minutes of August 2, 1981 , without correction.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.,
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Petrie declared that the absence of Joan Henick for numerous meetings should
be checked out, and asked if these were excused absences. Mr. Galante reported
that a Board member is allowed three unexcused absences. Mr. Bonney volunteered ,.,
to contact Ms. Henick to find out her intentions on the matter.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1i :40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
0/wt.
Beverly Coghill
Secretary
4110
;1111
,.:. F
I
I
p
, ..
I
1 ,,
. ,..
, , , ,
I
, ,. ,
II
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETiNG September 9, 1981 Page 1
The Development Review Board meeting of September 9, 1981 was called to order at 7:35
1110 p.m. by Chairman Robert Bonney. Development Review Board members present were:
Richard Eslick, Bede Nishimura, Shirley Petrie, Lang Bates, and Robert Bonney, and
Frank Clarke. Joan Henick was absent. Staff members present were: Robert Galante,
City Planner; Alex Arseniev, Assistant City Engineer: Mark Pilliod, Deputy City
Attorney; Beverly Coghill, Secretary; and Lori Mastrantonio-Meuser, City Planner
(who arrived at 10: 10 p.m.) .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 17, 1981 MEETING
Ms. Petrie moved for approval of the minutes of the August 17, 1981 meeting without
corrections. The motion was seconded and ,passed unanimously,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
John Helmer' has received approval from the Planning Commission to hold retail sales
on their premises twice yearly. The site is located, in the industrial zone. The
Board, as a condition of approval , is being asked to, approve the parking and traffic
circulation, which staff feels is adequate. A site plan was presented-, showing 31
spaces in the complex, and 41 additional spaces across 13oones Ferry Road at the
Chipper Plant. A letter of approval for the shared parking from the Chipper Plant
was presented.
Ms. Petrie moved for approval of the request. Mr. Clarke seconded the motion which
passed unanimously.
Lewis & Clark Bank, Robert Randali Co. , appealed the requirement of two hose bibs in
the Village Shopping Center's new landscaping,
Paul Yang, described these hose bibs as being planned to water the northeast portion
of the parking lot. The original proposai was for 1'00' on center. The original land-
scaping would have been served by the hose bibs being placed 120 feet away on the build-
ing, but the 100 feet originally proposed will entail spending an additional $2,000
to $50000 to place the two hose bibs. If the Board. does not give approval , the bank
will not be given its final occupancy permit. He presented a site plan to the Board
for review. The watering by hoses would be done early in the morning before it would
present a ;problem for use of the parking lot.
Ms. Petrie asked why the bank was responsible for placement of the hose bibs. Mr.
Galante explained that this was in response to the City's requirement for properties
to bring their land up to code when new development occurs. He described the Center
as being one development under one ownership. Mr. Galante pointed out that the new
landscaping Was not done with drought-resistant plantings. Mr. Yang responded that
they would be happy to change the plants to something more drought-resistant. Mr.
Bates moved for approval of the request with the condition that the landscaping be
changed to more drought-resistant plants, to the satisfaction of staff. The motion
was seconded and passed unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DR 12-81 . (Douglas Kolber9, Montessori School ) To consider a request by Douglas
Kolberg for preliminary and final design review approval to allow construction of
Aft a Montessori School on approximately 0.6 acres of property located on the east side
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 9, 1981. Page 2
of Highway 43, Iustsouth of its intersection with Glenmorrie Road (Tax Lots
1100and
d
1200 of Tax Map 2 1E 14BB)
Mr. Galante presented the staff report and reviewed past action. He explained that
he had not seen the new drawings until tonight, and presented copies to the Board.
He explained that the proRerty lines have been adjusted in plans to meet the require-
ments, and there is a slight revision of the site plan and landscape plan because of
this adjustment. He presented a revised color and material board. The lighting fix-
tures have been changed. The development schedule has been submitted, and all other
requirements have been met, including the grading plan. The south property line will
have a 4-foot chain link fence, and a 6-foot cedar fence will be installed on the
north property line. The grading plan takes care of the drainage, including that of
the neighbor who expressed concern at the prior meeting, however, drainage of the
single-family lots is not adequately illustrated. The plan shows fencing on three
sides of the trash area.
Masood Mian, 7322 SW 13th Drive I/O, reviewed the drawings presented tonight, indicat-
ing that the site plan shows new lot line adjustments; a new water line along Gienmorrie
will "include a fire hydrant; the new siding will be cedar channel , but the applicant
is appealing for the original material (T1-11 Siding) to be reconsidered since it is
less costly and the building is screened from surrounding view; extruded curbs will
be installed in the parking lot; the garbage area will be screened on four sides;
four hose bibs will be included, one at each corner of the building, with no under-
ground sprinklers; a flood light with a 500-watt quartz lamp is proposed; fence
construction is shown on sheet 7 of the drawings; and handicap provisions will he
made.
Mr. Mian appealed for preliminary and final approval so Mrs. Phillips will be able
to relocate her school as soon as possible, to alleviate the crowded conditions of
the present Lakewood Center site,
Mr. Bates suggested the handicap-vehicle stall be located closer to the building
rather than at the farthest space, as shown on the drawings. The handicap ramp
(from the parking lot) is shown in two different locations on the site plan and
the landscape plan. Mr. Bates stressed the need to follow the site plan for this
item. The flood light proposal was not acceptable to Mr, Bates, as he felt this
would be "blinding" to neighbors.
Mr. Mian stated that Mrs. Phillips did not wish to place a sign on the street, and
it will be erected inside the property. The sign will be as shown on the elevation
presented tonight, and the colors have not been determined, but will be to the sat-
isfaction of staff.
Doug Kolberg, 197 Pine Valley Roads applicant, declared that if the school must be
done in the cedar channel siding, it will increase the cost $3,500 over use of the
T1-11 material previously requested. He appealed for reconsideration of this material .
Opposition - None.
A discussion on the lighting followed. Mr, Galante assured the Board that lighting
standards of the City would have to be met, and that would eliminate the proposed
flood lights. This problem can be worked, out with staff.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 9, 1981 Page 3
Mr. Eslick felt the handicap ramp could be shortened at considerable saving to the
• applicant, and the covered play area could be done in the T1-11 material , and the
balance in the cedar channel . Creative grading could eliminate the railing for the
handicap ramp, thus cutting down on the cost.
Mr. Mien submitted the dates for the construction schedule a$ starting on October 7,
1981 and finishing on February 15, 1982,
Mr. Eslick moved for preliminary and final approval with the following conditions :
1 . T1-11 material is to be used in the covered play area, and cedar channeling
in the balance of the building.
2. Handicap ramp railing to be eliminated if possible by grading of the
area and the ramp should then be shortened.
3. Pole type lighting to be used according to city standards.
k. Handicap parking to be moved to the nearest parking stall to the building.
5. Gates on the trash area to be added, which will fence the area on all
four sides.
G. Color of the sign be submitted to the staff, and the size be acceptable
for a conditional use,
Alk 7. All conditional use requirements are to be met.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously,
SIGN APPROVALS
DR 30-77 (Troy's Seafood Market) -- Mr. Galante reviewed past.action. He presented
photos of the existing sign and the proposed sign, which meets all city requirements.
The sign is planned to be 50 square feet, and will be interior lighted, plastic.
Bob Kathman, applicant's representative, reviewed the past action on the request,
and described the necessity of the new sign for business. Ms. Petrie moved for
approval of the sign. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Grandpa Don's Old Fashioned Smoked Meat, is asking for a sign approval for a sign that
has already been Installed, but not the one approved by the Board in previous action.
Mr. Galante stated that he discovered this when he went to the site to inspect the
sign. He related that the sign installed was a good one, and would meet all require-
ments. Ms. Petrie strongly objected to the fact that a sign had been erected without
approval , and without notification to the City that it was different than the one
approved, She cited the time and effort expended by the staff and Development
Review Board in considering the sign they had proposed, and wondered at the logic of
presenting one sign and having it approved, and then erecting a different sign. Ms.
Petrie maintained that if this sign is approved, the applicant-should receive a
letter of objection for their handling of the request.
•
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 9, 1981 Page 4
Mr. Esllck moved for approval of the request. The motion was seconded and passed
III with all Board members voting in favor with the exception of Ms. Petrie, who voted no,�
Westwood House Restuarant, is requesting: installation of a wail sign that has been
completed,' but not installed. Mr. Galante presented photos of the sign, stating that
it meets code requirements.
Chris Thompson, owner of the Westwood House, stressed that he needs the sign so the
public can see his business from State Street.
Ms. Petrie moved for approval of the sign. The motion was seconded and passed
unanimously,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VAR 17-81 (Otak and Associates for Carolyn Angelelo and Kathleen MacNaughton) - To
consider a request by Otak and Associates for Carolyn Angelelo ;and Kathleen MacNaughton
for approval of two lot-width variances and the creation of four lots without road
frontage at 3151 and 3155 $W Douglas Circle. The owners propose to partition each
of their partially-developed lots into three lots each for a total of six lots. A
shared easement will provide access to the proposed four rear parcels. (Tax Lots 6000
and 6100; Tax Map 2 1E 8AC) .
Mr. Galante presented the staff report, and read a letter of opposition from Valerie
and Frank French (Exhibit F) .
Ken Nelson, Otak, agrees to all staff conditions. He explained the easement was III
placed as shown in order to save large trees on the site. Mr. Eslick suggested
developing only five lots instead of six.
Opposition
William E. Perine, 3425 SW Lanewood, submitted a copy of Exhibit B, showing the list
of property owners to be notified, and the absence. of the Trenches name, who reside
on Lot 6200 immediately adjacent to the site in question. He felt the hearing should
be postponed until the Frenches can attend, as they are, out of town at present, He
is concerned that the lots will be less than the required 10,000 sq. ft. , after the
casement is in place. He feels this development will destroy the character of the
neighborhood.
Rebuttal
Kathleen MacNaughton, applicant, explained that this development is being done by the
two property owners in order to share the easement, and it is a minor partition,
rather than a subdivision because there are two property owners involved. She plans
to remain on her property, and believes Ms. Angelelo will also remain after the
partitioning. Mr. Bonney`advocated refiguring the lots, and would prefer to have
the Planning Commission review the request for Section 2 before a variance Is granted.
He feels the development should be considered as a subdivision, Mr. Galante explained
that the applicants have a right to develop their property separately. Ms. Petrie
asked if the property owners could be required to make the lots larger than required. •
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 9, 1981 Page 5
Mr. Galante responded that the Board cannot do that, but they can require buffering,
etc. , and can also ask to see the envelope of the buildings as they will be placed
illon the lots.
Ms. Petrie declared that she did net want to "pass the buck" to the Planning Com-
mission, and feels from testimony that the applicants have come up with the best
solution for their property. She moved for approval of the request, with all
conditions of staff applying. There was no second to the motion.
Mr. Bates moved to have the applicants submit a drawing showing the envelopes of
the building on the lots, with the 25-foot easement indicated., and staff conditions
1 , 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 applying. After further discussion, Mr. Bates withdrew
his motion.
Mr. Eslick moved to table VAR 17-81. until September '21 ► 1981 when the Planning Com
mission would have compieted their review, The applicants should address the concerns
of the Board as outlined in tonight's meeting, and the residents within the 200-foot
radius are to be notified rePerl before the next hearing. The motion was seconded
p p Y
and passed unanimously.
VAR 18-81 (Lake Oswego Community Theatre) To consider a request by the Lake Oswego
Community Theatre for a variance to allow the use of a gravesl-surfaced parking lot
in place of the required paved surface which is proposed to meet the parking re
quirements of the Lakewood Center, located at 368 State Street (Tak Lots 10400, 10200,
10300 of Tax Map 2 lE lOAD) .
Mr. Galante presented the staff report, and a_ letter in opposition from Walter
McMonies, pointing out that only tr6 paved spaces are required at this time, but
the applicant wishes to gravel parking space for 76 cars.
Michael Dexter, 1775 Leafy Lane, applicant, reviewed past action on the development
of the Community Theatre, and pointed out that the lot Is not flat and that develop-
ing it in phases is difficult.
If the lot is paved now a section on the south side will be destroyed during con-
structi'on of the stage house due to the heavy equipment moving across that portion.
To pave a portion of the lot will cost $15,000. To grade and gravel it, will cost
$3,000. Mr. Eslick asked If some sort of water-proofing material had been placed
under the gravel , which is already in place. Ms. Dexter said this had not been done,
because they felt it was not necessary. They did not know a permit would be required
for a gravelled lot. Mr. Bates asked if the City Engineer has seen the plan for the
parking lot development. Mr. Arseniev replied that it has not been seen by the City
Engineer,
Bill, Fleadlee, 1874 Glenmorrie Terrace, reminded the Board that this is a community
center, being developed with volunteer funds. Their funding goal has not yet been
realized. If they are forced to use the money they have for a paved parking lot,
they,will not be able to develop other plans that would make the center more attractive
to the co►mnunity. He reiterated that permanent paving would be destroyed at the time
the stage house is built.
Opposition
0 Theodore Sandie, 8902 Mt, Lassen, Vancouver, WA. , property owner of Lot 25, noted that
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 9, 1981 Page 6
the home on his lot is leased now. At one time Ridgeway was also gravelled, and it
S
was very dusty and dirty, and they are experiencing the same thing again with the
construction going on at the former school . He asked if the Board would consider
letting other commercial parking such as Safeway or the Village Shopping Center be
done in gravel. He contended that gravel is more costly to maintain in the long run,
and it causes dust and dirt during dry weather, and will be muddy during wet weather.
Aesthetically, the material should not be given any consideration for such an appli-
cation. i
Ms. Petrie suggested the lot be allowed on a temporary basis, with the drainage installed.
Mr. Clarke did not feel it was the function of the Board to consider the funds the
applicant does or does not have available, and that they should conform to the City
codes.
Mr. Galante clarified that the applicant had been told they could gravel, but this
was considered only the first step in paving.
Mr. Eslick asked if the gravel would allow water to run through. Mr. Arseniev
responded that the drainage would be about the same as it was before the gravel was
placed. Mr. Galante explained that the drainage asked for was not for run-off, as
this is not considered a problem in this case, but to allow the water to drain away,
so that mud will not come up through the, gravel
Mr. Eslick moved for approval of the gravel parking lot on a temporary basis, not to
exceed one year from this date, and at that time the lot 'is to be completed and
paved. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously,
There was a 10 minute recess at 10:20 p.m.
DR 10-81', (Bankers Investment Corporation) - To consider a request by Bankers Invest-
ment Corporation for final Design Review approval to allow construction of a 22,000
square foot Professional Medical Office Building located at the northwest corner of
Kerr Parkway and McNary Parkway and bordered on the north by Becket Drive. Prelimin-
ary approval was granted by the Design Review Board on July 20, 1981 . (Tax Lot 57,
Multnomah County Tax Map 4225) .
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser presented the staff report, explaining that Exhibit T shows
a partial site plan indicating how the refuse will be picked up, Exhibit Q-1 is a
revised landscape plan. Exhibit G-1 Is the elevation of the north side. She has not
had time to review the revised plans for conformance to Condition 1 . Condition 3 can
be eliminated if the Board approves the plans submitted tonight. Condition 4 regard-
ing the shared access should be addressed. Condition 5 regarding the sidewalk can be
eliminated, as the sidewalk is not required.
John Jurgens 917 SW Oak, Portland, applicant's representative, agrees with all the
conditions, but would like to retain the original color submitted. He presented
photos of other buildings in the neighborhood. Mr. Bates responded that a semi-
transparent stain in the same color would be preferable to the heavy stain, and a color
for the trim should be determined. Mr. Jurgens agreed to this. He noted the signs
will be located at the corner of McNary and Kerr (Exhibit 0) . The construction
41 schedule is the same as originally submitted (Exhibit C) .
r'r. I
DEVELOPMENT REViEW BOARD MEETING September 9, 1981 Page 7
Opposition - None
I Ill/ Ms. Petrie asked if the applicant would have to comply with the new standards if they
pass before this request is approved, Mr. Galante replied that the existing codes
would apply. He stated the applicant should give a specific date for completion,
rather than just the "spring of 1982." Mr. Jurgens agreed to change the date to
April , 1982.
Mr, Bates moved for final approval incorporating staff conditions 1 , 2 (a revised
color and material board be submitted to the Board, under Unfinished BusinesS, showing
the transparent stain, and color treatment for the doors and other trim) , Condition 3
(of the Staff Report) is deleted, New Condition 3 (a shared accessway be provided to
the southeast and the easement be recorded for the access) , 4 (area drains on the
north of the structure) and the entire drainage system be done to the satisfaction
of staff, 5 (the sidewalk along Becket be eliminated) , 6 (the construction schedule
is to indicate a completion date of April , 1982) The motion was seconded, and
passed unanimously. Ms. Petrie asked to go on record that she feels the red maples
planned on the west side of the site are a good, choice, and will be adequate for the
boundry-line screening.
DR 13-81 (Marylhurst Education Center) - To consider a request by the Maryihurst
Education Center for preliminary and final approval to allow the construction of
an 1800-square-foot addition to a 12-square-foot warehouse, located in the northeast
corner of the Marylhurst Campus. (Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map
2 lE 1r
Mr. Galante presented the staff report, and presented a color sample of the roofing
and siding material . Reviewing the conditions, he stated that ii1 has been addressed,
as Marylhurst has applied for water improvements already; l(3 has been addressed;
#4 Is complete, an additional site plan, showing restoration of the site has been
presented. The applicant was not in attendance.
Opposition * None.
Ms, Nishimura moved for approval of preliminary and final Development Review, with
the condition that the applicant provide fire, protection to the satisfaction of staff.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
DR 14,81 (Shelter Development Co.) - To consider a request by Shelter Development
Company for preliminary approval to allow construction of an elderly housing project
of 26 units with an option to construct 45 units pending a successful appeal to City
Council , 'on. the 26-unit restriction imposed by the Planning Commission. Council re-
view of the appeal will be held at City Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m. on September 1 ,
1981 . The project is located on the north side of Sunset Drive between Reese and;
Bryant Roads (Tax Lots 6100, 6200 and 100 of Tax Map 2 1E 8CB) .
Mr. Galante presented the staff report. The number of units should be changed from
45 to 30. The staff report in the packet is not applicable, but the conditions and
site location remain the same. Staff has not had a chance to review the new proposal
by the applicant. Mr. Galante reviewed the Planning Commission action of July 13,
1981, and the action of the City Council on the appeal by the applicant,
I ink
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 9, 1981 Page 8
Bill Headieer Holiyfield Ltd. and Shelter Property representative, reviewed the back-
S ground of the Hollyfield request and the move to the Lake Grove site for elderly
housing. In this application the staff had recommended 45 units, the Planning
Commission approved 26, and the City Council approved 30. His lope is to develop
the 30 units on one acre of the property and to sell one-half acre to the County.
The plan presented tonight is for development of 30 units on one acre. Mr. Bates
asked for clarification on the point of whether the applicant was asking for de-
velopment of 30 units on one acre or 30 units on one and one-half acres, as approved
by the Council
Pete Harvey, City Manager, responded that the Board was asked to consider approval
on 30 units on one and one-half acres. If the applicant goes back to the Planning
Commission with a proposal for 30 units on one acre, and if it is approved, the
Board can consider it. At this time, Mr. Harvey reported, the Board should not attempt
to guess what will happen.
Mr. Galante stressed that the board should consider approval of 30 units for one and
one-half acres, then the applicant can go back to the Planning Commission for con-
sideration 30 units on one acre.
Charles Morgan, 7301 Beverly Lane, Everett, WA. , reviewed the applicant's compliance
with staff conditions, /!3, the site plan has been revised as recommended by staff
regarding the access drive. //4, has been addressed, and all the parking is off
Sunset. //5, the grading is no problem, and will be done. //6 and //7, regarding `
tree cutting, is Indicated on the plan, and along the property line no foliage
Would be cut. Additional planting would be added in that area. //d, stucco will not
• be used, and anodized bronze aluminum windows will be used. //8, the siding material
will all be beveled, as recommended. //10, the sign will be a long narrow shape, ap-
proximately 3 feet off the ground of thick cedar with grooved lettering, and .lighted
by a ground level flood light. An additional i0 feet on Sunset will be dedicated.
A fire lane will come through from either end of the property and pedestrian access
will be provided, as well . Mr. Morgan was not sure what type surface material would
be used for the fire lane, but will comply with Fire Department requirements on the
final plan. Mr. Morgan related a discussion he had With Mr. Tom Shaw, Staff
Architect, State of Oregon, who recommended the building as shown on the plan be "flipped"
over. This would make exposure to the sun better, and leave trees in the court yard
area. Mr. Shaw also suggested a "through type" parking lot to accommodate trucks that
service the building. He felt the police and fire departments would prefer this type
parking lot also,
Mr. Bates asked for a description of other site amenities, if any. Mr. Morgan replied
there will be benches along the sidewalks, a barbeque area, and a tenant garden area.
All ground floor units will have private patios, and second-floor units will have
individual decks. Mr. Bates was concerned that because of the heavy forest on the
property, many of the trees would be lost. Mr. Morgan assured him that the bigger
trees will not be lost because of their location on the site. A tree and boundry
survey Was submitted, but not a topographic survey. Topography Is based on aerial
survey. Mr. Eslick feit the configuration of the design closed it off from Inter-
facing with the surrounding neighbors, and questioned whether this was in the best
interest of the residents. He also suggested the use of solar energy.
Mr. Galante noted that the use of solar energy is not a code requirement. He pointed
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 9, 1981 Page 9
out that some of the trees were only one foot away from the foundation of the
1110 structure and questioned whether they could actually be saved. Mr. Eslick reflected
that a darker roof on building would bring the height down. Mr. Arseniev' reported
that the applicant will have to be a part of the LiD that is now being formed in
the area, and this includes a storm drain plan. The fire lane is along the property
line and the side yard seems too narrow for proper buffering. if the entire building
were moved to the back half of the property, this problem could be overcome, and
more buffering could be placed. He pointed out that the original Findings did not
require that Boones Ferry Road be accessed.
Mr. Bates questioned the method of garbage collection. Mr. Morgan replied that this
has not been resolved yet, but it will be in a covered and enclosed area,, He main-
tained that the State requires, accessing to the commercial area.
Richard Hutchins, 1616 Reese Road, clarified that there was already an access to the
commercial area on the property.
Tom Shaw, Staff Architect, State of Oregon, Salem, reported that if the project is
approved, It will be financed through Section 6. The State feels that this elderly
housing is needed, as there is none In the Lake Oswego area. He emphasized that if
there is no approval , and no working drawings, submitted by the deadline, Lake Oswego
will lose this opportunity from the State. He declared this project would have a very
good impact on the neighborhood in all ways. He maintained that traffic impact Would
be almost non-existent.
Richard Hutchins, declared that he had been in opposition before, but now is in favor
of the project if it is to be 30 units on one and one-half acres, He would only support
1110 30 units on one acre if the other half-acre were: left in open space. The recommenda-
tions of the staff report of August 28 are acceptable to him. He felt the fire access
could come from Boones Ferry and Sunset, where there are fire hydrants. He agreed
that time was of the essence, and the applicant should consider that if he i5 going
to appeal to cut the site down to one acre, he will have to go through the entire
process again.
Opposition - None.
Mr. Bonney read from the Zoning Ordinance, 90.880, for clarification of this prelimi-
nary application,
Mr. Bates moved for preliminary approval of DR 14-81, for 30 units on one and one-half
acres, With the following conditions.:
1 . Planning Commission CU 8-81 and City Council actions and conditions be
complied with.
2. That a dual access drive to the parking area be provided and that the
parking be dimensioned to City standards, and include areas for handicap
Parking.
3, That the relationship of the site to adjoining properties, and structures
be shown on the Site Plan,
14. That a survey and topographic mip of the site be provided.
5. That the 'layout of the unit may be revised, or reversed.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 9, 1981 Page 10
b. That a landscape plan be submitted, showing adjacent properties, so
buffering can be done, properly.
40111
7. That color board be submitted. The roofing color should be considered in
a darker tone.
8, That the sign and colors for it he submitted.
9. That any site amenities such as benches, shelters, waste baskets, mall boxes,
garbage screens, transformer screens and lighting and graphics be indicated.
10. That the fire lane issue be resolved to the satisfaction of staff.
11 . That garbage location and screening be addressed.
12. That a petition and nonremonstrance agreement for future street
improvements be signed,
Because of the nature of the preliminary plan presentation, the Board indicated
that other conditions may be applied at the time of final review.
Mr. Eslick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
FINDINGS
DR 40-79, and VAR 15-81 , were presented and approved.
4111 ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
0.,
Beverly E. Coghill
Secretary
01410
1
II
I.
..
1
. •
I
I, ,
I
I ,,, ,,
No
.,
,,
I
.„,
I
1
4.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 21 , 1981 PAGE 1
The Development Review Board meeting of September 21, 1981 was called to order at
7:35 P.m. by Vice-Chairman Lang Bates. Development Review Board members present
were: Richard Es1ick, Shirley Petrie, Lang Bates, Joan Renick, and Frank Clarke,
Robert Bonney and Bede Nishimura were absent. Staff members present were: Mark
Pillled, Deputy City Attorney; Lori Mastrantonio-Meuser, City Planner; Robert
Galante,` City Planner; and Beverly Coghill , Secretary,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 9, 1981 MEETING
Mr. Clarke moved for approval of the minutes of the September 9, 1981 meeting
without corrections. The motion was seconded and passed with 011 Board members
voting in favor with the exception of Ms. 'Henick, who abstained,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DR 6-81 (Mountain Park Racquet Club Addition) -- The applicant has submitted a request
for approval of a change on the approved roofing color and siding material . The
roof material will have a "dulled" finish, rather than the "shiney" finish as approved
by the Board. Thee siding material is requested to be changed from the pre;-finished
metal to 1 x 14tongue and groove rough sawn cedar siding to match the existing siding.
Additionally, more landscaping and screening is being proposed, Mr. Galante presented
the plans and letter asking for the changes (Exhibits A-t'and A-2), Staff recommends
approval of the changes. Ms, Petrie moved for approval c`f the -'request, Photos were
presented in lieu of a color board, which was acceptable to the Board. A condition
dik was added to require that a revised landscape plan be submitted to staff, which was
4111, seconded and passed unanimously.
SIGN APPROVALS
Lake Shore Motor Hotel , State Street, is asking for approval of a 5-foot x 17-foot
wail- sign. Mr. Galante presented the elevation plan and photos of the site.
Susan Weakley, Owner, Beaverton, Oregon, described the sign and the wall as being
over 100 feet from State Street, She reported that the present sign is partially
hidden behind a tree, so further identification is needed for her business. The
sign will not require additional lighting.
Opposition - None.
Ms. Henlck moved for approval of the request. The motion was seconded. Ms. Weakiey
submitted color chips as an example of the color proposed. The motion passed with
all Board members voting in favor with the exception of Mr. Bates, who abstained,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VAR 17-81 (Otak and Associates (Applicant) and: Carolyn Angeleio and Kathleen
MacNaughton (Owners) Mr. Galante explained that this item will not be placed
on the Board's agenda until the Planning 'Commission has evaluated the request. The
item will be scheduled for the Board's next meeting, October 5, 1981 .
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 21 , 1981 PAGE 2
VAR 20-81 (Clarence and AdelleJenike) scheduled for tonight's meeting has been with-
drawn.
► IP DR 15-81 (James R. Estes) -- A request by James R. Estes for preliminary and final I
Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 10-unit condominium project
located at 525 Furnace Street. (Tax Lot 900; Tax Map 2 1E 11BC) .
Ms. Mastrantonlo-Meuser presented the staff report. In addition to the eight con-
ditions of approval of the September 11 , 1981 staff report, Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser
added: 9. That the Willamette Greenway boundary lines of the City and State should
be shown on the plan. 10. That a soils report be presented, as this is a potential
slide area
(later in the meeting, the applicant pointed out that this report had
been submitted (Exhibit "Q") , 11 . That the bike-path easement should be recorded,
Ms. Mastrantono-Meuser said the sewer easement on the property could be quit-claimed
to allow for the bike-path easement.
Staff recommends preliminary approval only.
Charles Hegel , architect, 7035 SW Hampton, Tigard, explained the design and the
reasons for the stepped-down" building. He submitted the revised plan which shows
a change in the bay windows. A model was presented. Mr. Hegel described the "elements"
on the model and how they were a reflection of the older buildings in the neighborhood.
The north and south elevations are correct, and the west elevation Is revised. The
units will be from 1500 to 1600 square feet each (the new plan is designated Exhibit
"J-1") . The construction schedule is for a March 1 , 1982 start, allowing six months
to finish. The lighting is by pole lights, and is shown on the landscape plans.
The sign will be no larger than the allowed 8 square feet.
Jim Estes, 525 Furnace Street applicant, reported that the survey and the topographic
map has not been completed for submission tonight, however, the engineer has stated
that the plans are generally correct.
Mr. Bates questioned the reason for the large round red dot on the building and was
told this is an accent mark. The applicant, in response to Mr. Bates' question on
garbage storage collection, stated that he felt it would be no problem. He stressed
that the model is not complete, and the only change on the elevation is the bay
window.
Opposition
Hugh Dwight, 397 Furnace, read a letter in opposition to the plan, due to the re-
quirement for the bike path (Exhibit "S") . This letter was signed by all the property
owners from the Estes property to the cement plant
Mr. Galante. explained that the bike path (p. 91 of the Comprehensive Plan) is
conceptual in the layout, and does not have to follow the River edge. The path has
been placed on the 100-year flood plain level so that it will not be inundated.
Ms. Henick stated that unless the neighbors could be assured of the configuration
of the bike path, neither they nor Mr. Estes should be required to give easements
for that purpose.
Marguerite Leche, 105 Furnace, stated that the Greenway Boundary has been established
at 150 feet by the City and the State, and it does not allow trespassing on private
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 21 , 1981 PAGE 3
----------------
property. Ms. Leche read her statement in opposition (Exhibit "T")
1 • Ms. Leche objected to the non-remonstrance requirement. Mr. Galante stressed that
this could be required due to the additional drainage that would be caused in plac-
ing 10 units on a lot where only one had existed before. It i-5 a common practice
of the City to require this as property is developed. Mr. Galante informed the Board
that the Comprehensive Plan wording regarding bike path routes is that they are
"preferred, but not mandatory." He suggested as a condition of approval that the
staff research this problem, and bring it back for further consideration by the Board.
Mr. Estes declared the bike path should be considered to run on Furnace Street,
where the neighbors would likely not object to it , and it would not be cutting
properties in half.
Ed Miller, Oregon Portland Cement representative, pointed out that the bike path
would eventually cross over the cement plant property, and wishe,; to go on record
that, the plant would not approve that.
Ed Roschette, 144 Wilbur, maintained that the staff report does not show any evi-
dence of impact on the public park, ' Nothing exists in the record on erroslon '
problems and weak foundations soils of thi's area. Because of the Greenway, LCDC
Goal 15 requires a conditional use permit. The character of the neighborhood
should be preserved. There are no six-story buildings in the single-family
neighborhood. Mr. Roschette feels his view would be adversely affected. The
project will cause too much traffic. He declared there should be a Finding presented
stating that the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. A variance is required
for the project and this process requires that hardship be shown. This has not been
4 done. The design presented is incomplete, and does not comply with the Comprehensive
Plan. He asked for information on the appeal process, Mr. Galante informed him
of this, stating that an appeal can be made within a 15-day period following the
date of adoption of the Findings. Findings are generally approved at the meeting'
following approval.
Rebuttal
Mr. Estes stated, with reference to the height of the building, that the proposed
building is never over 30 feet from the ground. The soils engineer's report states
that the site is stable with proper drainage. Mr. Estes questioned whether Mr. Roach=
ette could see the structure from his property. With reference to the traffic, he
stated the traffic on Furnace will be diminished considerably when the new bridge
is finished. The variance request is for the height of the building. A single-
family house can be 35 feet from ground level , and this structure will only be 30
feet from the ground. Mr. Bates asked what the underlying zone would allow in
building height. Mr. Galante said this Is a Design District, and will allow a maxi-
mum of 35 feet.
Mr. Hegel presented his plan again, attempting to clarify the revisions. Ms.
Mastrantonio-Meuser Informed the Board that a full set of plans were submitted to
the ICBO (International Conference of Building Officials) , and they identified
the building as being 6 stories in height.
A general discussion on the design and the bike path considerations followed. The
Ash feeling of the Board was that the plans were not complete and that the bike path
could possibly be eliminated or moved.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 21 , 1981 PAGE 4
Mr. Bates summarized the points that should be, addressed by the applicant, The
illapplicant, at this point, presented a colored rendering of the proposed site plan.
Ms. Petrie moved to table the request until the October 5 meeting.
Ms. Henick suggested the applicant discuss the design with the neighbors for their
input on whether or not they felt It was acceptable.
Mr. Galante asked the. Board to summarize specific points that the applicant should
consider.
As conditions to the motion to table the request until the October 5 meeting, Mr.
Bates included his summary and other suggestions by Board members for the applicant's
guidance: '
Condition 1 of the September 11 , 1981 staff report would include the
visual and functional impact of the physical structure on the neighbor-
hood, what impact the retaining walls have on the project, what impact
the drainage will have, and what impact an accurate topographic survey
will have, in addition, entrances and exits are not shown adequately,
the retaining walls are not adequately shown, screening is not shown, and
a site study showing the relationship (especially views) to surrounding
buildings should be shown in More detail . There are possible interior
design problems because of the dead-end corridors, and code issues
should be clarified. Site lighting and type of lighting is not clear,
security could be a problem behind the retaining walls and the main
411
entrance, the garbage storage area planned for 10 cans might not be
the best use of land, screening from Furnace Street does not specify
the height; the stucco siding might not be the best choice for this
neighborhood, and the use of the mansard roof style which adds additional `
height should be reconsidered. The drawings should be drawn accurately
and submitted as they will be on the finished building, the color board
should show door and trim areas also, and elevations should be dimensioned.
Cgndltions 2 through 8, as stated in the staff report.
Condition 9, The Willamette Greenway issue, will be cleared up by staff
and presented at the next meeting.
Condition 10, the bike-path issue, can be resolved separately and will
become a part of this development when it is resolved.
The issue of the variance height should be determined, and staff will give verifica- I
tion of this, Criteria for the variance will be listed and specified.
The applicant is required to submit all drawings and plan revisions to the staff
before 8 a.m. Thursday, October 1 , 1981 .
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
II
There was a recess from 10:20 to 10;30 p.m.
. II
it
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 21 , 1981 PAGE 5
DR 16-81 (Cookes Butte Park - City Transmitter) -- A request by the City of Lake
Oswego for approval to construct a 40-foot-high antenna on the 18-foot-high Cookes
Butte Reservoir, and a 90-square-foot, 8-foot-high communications equipment room
in Cookes Butte Park. (Ta)< Lots 500 and 502 of Tax Map 2 'lE 16C) ,
Mr. Galante presented the staff report. The Planning Commission has already re-
viewed and approved the request. An addition to the report is the plan for an 8-foot
chain link fence around the perimeter of the reservoir. This is to be erected to
keep out vandals, and the fence is a part of the modified landscape plan. Mr. Eslick
suggested the color be changed from brown to 'micro green" and that green also be
considered for the chain link fence. Mr. Eslick moved for approval of the request
as presented. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
GENERAL PLANNING
Mr. Galante presented a calendar of events on the urban renewal project to each
member of the Board.
Mr. Bates suggested the Board have a review of the new development ordinances. A
Workshop date will be decided upon for this purpose. Mr. Clarke stated he did not
feel the Board should be considering bike-path routes, He, feels the Planning Com-
mission should be involved in this issue. Mr. Bates was concerned whether the
Development Review Board could hear all the issues in only two meetings a month,
considering that more procedures and policies will be a part of the Board's duties.
FINDINGS
lip
DR 10-81 Findings were approved and signed.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:59 p,m.
Respectfully submitted,
-t,'‘'Lg/tL/^6." 6/-d"i;f- efil
r
Beverly C 11 /0d441.,
Secretary
t .q, • YN .t:, • ,r
1.
•
i
,
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 5, 1981 PAGE 1
The Development Review Board meeting of October 5, 1981 was called to order at 7:35
p.m. by Vice-Chairman Lang Bates. Development Review Board members present Were:
illp Richard Eslick, Lang Bates, Shirley Petrie and Joan Henick. Those absent were: Frank
Clarke, Robert Bonney and Bede Nishimura. Staff members present were: Mark Pilliod,
Deputy City Attorney; Lori Mastrantonio-Meuser, City Planner; Robert Galante,City
Planner; and Beverly Coghill , Secretary.
APPROVAL, OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 21 ; 1981 MEETING
t'
There was a motion for approval of the minutes of September 21 , 1981 without correc-
tions. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
None
1 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DR-10-81 , Medical Office Building at Kerr and McNary, a color and material board had
been requested by the Board as a condition of approval for the building.
I Rand Jer ens 917 S.W. Oak Portland presented the color and material board for
approva x t KK exp dining t at it is identical to the original board except
for the stain material . Mr. Eslick moved for approval of the color and material
board as presented. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
SIGN APPROVALS
40 DR-35-80, Charles Kaady for Car Wash on State Street, is asking for approval of a
`total of five signs. The new sign presented is a 5'' x 3' plexi glass entrance sign.
Mr. Galante explained that this is in addition to other signs that are on the pro-
ject (some erected without permit). , Photos of the existing signs were presented
(Exhibit A). The ordinance states that two ground signs are allowed. Staff believes
that due to the type ofbusiness making the request, that some directional signs are
necessary. Staff does not believe that the temporary sign presently at the entrance
to the structure can be allowed. Mr. Eslick asked if the City Engineer had reviewed
the signs, and expressed an opinion on their use. Mr. Galante responded that he did
not know if the City Engineer had seen them. The signs on the premises noW had not
been approved by the Board, and were placed without permits.
Mike Carulli, Columbia Sign Co., 1820 Burnside, Portland, explained that the erection 1
of this sign will alleviate a problem with the entrance and exit using the same access.
The sign is a 2 x 3 and three feet above grade. The signs discussed that are within
the car wash are not visible from State Street, and serve as directional signs.
Chuck Kaady, 714 N. State Street, reiterated that none of the signs that have been
placed_ are visible from State Street, and they are directional in nature.
Opposition
David O'Dell , 1755 Kilkenny, has a business in Lake Oswego, and feelsthe Board will
open a "Pandora's Box" if they approve this request. There are many other businesses
in the City that could claim the same need for additional signs. Signs can be placed
in windows, and two ground signs are sufficient. The signs on the premises are visi
I ble from "D" Avenue, and not being visible from State Street should net be a premise
for approval .
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 5, 1981 PAGE' 2
Mr. Bates asked why the applicant did not ask for these signs `On the original
application. Mr. Kaady responded that he did not realize they would be needed
• until he found that using the same driveway for entrance and exit created problems.
Mr. Galante read from the Sign Ordinance, Chapter 47. The applicant does not have
any wall signs. He might be able to meet the code by changing the type of signs
used.
Mr. Kaady appealed for the signs based on safety, as customers are now making
"U"' turns on "D" when they are looking for the entrance to the car wash.
A discussion between the Board members and the applicant followed on the necessity
of all of the signs and their design. It was felt that the signs should have more
uniformity in color and design.
Rebuttal
David O'Dell reminded the Board that service station operators throughout 'the City
could come in with the same requests, and they would be as valid as the applicant's
request. The Board is being asked to help one individual with his business, and this
is not necessary, as the applicant can live within the parameters of the Code just
as other businesses are doing.
Mr. Galante pointed out that if the applicant did attach some of the signage to
the wall , this might not be the best design, and perhaps the applicant should
come back with modifications, which will minimize some of the signs.
, Mr. Bates felt a hardship could be considered due to the topography, and some of
the other signs could be relocated. At this point, Ms. Petrie asked if the Board
IMF could have the addresses of businesses requesting signs prior to the meeting. She
would like to review the site before making a decision. Mr. Galante agreed the
' Board could be informed of the addresses When they are called to be reminded of
the meetings. Mr. Bates suggested the request be tabled, and the applicant can
come back with a restudy of the total signs, including those that have not been
approved and are in violation for having been installed without permits. He
would like to see the number of the ground signs reduced, and agreed that the
proposed sign presented tonight is conceptually acceptable. Mr. Eslick moved to
table the sign approval , Until the October 19 meeting, for consideration Under
Unfinished Business, with the applicant including the suggestions of the Board in
his new application. The motion was seconded and passed Unanimously,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VAR 17-81 lOtak and Associates, Inc. (Applicant) and Carolyn Angelelo and Kathleen
MacNaughton (Owners) was withdrawn from tonight's meeting, but wifi be heard on
October 19 if the Planning Commission completes their review.
r DR 15-81 (James R. Estes) - To consider a request by James R. Estes for 'prelimi-
nary and final Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 10-unit
r, condominium project located at 525 Furnace Street (Tax Lot 900, Tax Map 2 1E 11BC).
In addition, approval to allow this development within the Willamette Greenway.
(Held over from the September 21 , 1981 DRB Meeting).
Prior to presenting the staff report, Mr. Galante read a letter in opposition
from Ed Roschette, 144 Wilber (Exhihit Z). The letter pointed out that the
variance required for the request, had 'not beenadVertied properly.` Mr. Galante
suggested the Board postpone that part` of the request until proper advertising
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 5, 1981 PAGE 3
was done. Mr. Galante also read a letter in opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Jack
W. McLean, 159 Ladd (Exhibit Y). The letter stated they were not notified of
the public hearing, and were opposed to the docks and marinas shown in the news
paper report.
Mr. Galante presented photos of the view from 159 Ladd (Exhibit U),; and view from
the Raich's properties. These photos showed that none of the views from those
places would be diminished with the erection of the building as proposed.
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser ,presented the staff report. The survey and revised drawings
were submitted (Exhibits AA & D-O) , along with the color board (Exhibit R) for
examination by the Board. One of the conditions of the Board at the previous
meeting was that all revisions be presented to staff the Thursday prior to tonight's
meeting. Some of these documents were not submitted to staff until late today.
The survey does not show the Greenway Line. This is an area contni tted to urban
use, and in the Willamette Greenway intensification of use is allowed as long as
all the conditions of the State and City are met.
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser asked that the staff report of September 25, 1981 , page 3,
paragraph 1 , be changed to read: The staff believes a petition and nonremonstrance
• to allow an LID would not be an effective mechanism to insure development of a bike
path, if desired. The LID process requires that there be benefit to the property
owners sharing in the LID, In this case, the benefit will be to the public, at
large. Therefore the staff recommends that Condition #2 be changed to read: That
the applicant sign a petition and nonremonstrance agreement with the City to allow
future improvements along Furnace Street.
A separate Condition #12 be added which states: That dedication of right-of-way be
granted to the City by the applicant for the construction of an 8' wide pedestrian
and bikepath, running north and south, at approximately 150' from the mean low
water mark. If the City 'Council and/or the Parks and Recreation Commission detet^-
mine that a pedestrian and bikepath shall not be located on the site whatsoever, ' `
then the dedication shall be null and void.
An additional item was added to the staff report, as follows: Goal 5 ("OPen Space,
Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources"). The main objective is to "con-
serve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. Programs sha`Il be pro-
vided that 1 ) ensure open space, 2) protect scenic and historic areas land natural
resources for future generations and, 3) promote healthy and visually attractive
environment in harmony with the natural landscape character. Staff be`!ieves that
this area has exceptional scenic Views to the river. Goal 8 "Recreational Needs".
The main objective is to satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the
State and visitors. Recreation areas, facilities and opportunities must provide
for human development and enrichment, and include but are not limited to open
space and scenic landscapes, recreational lands, etc.
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser stated that if the Board considers the elimination of
Condition #12, then LCDC Goals 5, 8, and 15 along with the Design Review Ordinance,
and the Comprehensive Plan will have been Violated.
With reference to the new plans presented by the applicant, the mansard roof has been
removed. Mr. Galante explained the new elevation for the West side and north side.
Ms. Petrie asked what the staff considered native vegetation. Mr. Galante re-
sponded that Cottonwood, vine maple, oregon grape, etc. are native, but mugho pines
and ornamental plants are not. He 'said there is an inventory of Lake Oswego native
plants available for this information. At this time, he emphasized that if the
---
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 5, 1981 PAGE 4
variance is discussed, it should not be voted upon until after the proper notice
Am, has been sent to the public.
II, Marguerite Leche, 105 Furnace, insisted that testimony by Ed RoscOette should be
removed, as she feels he has a conflict of interest. Her basis for that contention
is that Mr. Roschette is an attorney for the LCDC. Mr. Pilliod,reminded Ms. Leche
that Mr. Roschette had mentioned his affiliation with that bod,%,, , and that as an area
resident he has a right to voice his opinion. Ms. Lech insisted that her group
would make the entire proceeding null and void if Mr. Rosch(,tte,'s testimony was
allowed to remain a part of the file. Mr. Pilliod advised her that she Would have
to wait until an appeals process for her action on the matter.
Charles Hagel , 7035 S.W. Hampton, Tigard, applicant, felt that the new plan was
more compatible. The sign is to be placed where the existing wall is on the north
property line. The grading plan is exactly according to the topographic map.
Sheet 4 shows the garbage storage now placed inside the building. The existing
hoUe, adjacent to the site is 3 feet shorter than the proposed building. The
lighting plan is shown on Sheet 4 (L-1 ). The lighting plan calls for 100 watt
incandescent lights. The landscape plan was formulated to use plants that fit
into the character of the neighborhood, and that are adaptable to the area. They
can be changed if others would be preferred by the staff. The Greenway Line is
shown on the site plan.
Mr. Bates asked if Mr. Nagel felt the building fit into the character of the neigh-
borhood. Mr. Hagel responded that he found a considerable amount of stucco used
in the area, and feels it is better material than metal or wood siding, and he
feels the roofing material chosen will enhance the plantings planned for that area,
Shore pines will screen the base of the building. Mr. Bates questioned whether six
shore pines would be sufficient for that purpose, Mr. Hagel agreed to add more
shore pines if necessary. Mr. Bates suggested a tile roof would be more compatible
with the stucco than the dull metal chosen. Mr. Hagel pointed out that the metal
would be easier to keep up, but agreed to change to tile if requested to do so.
Ms. Henick suggested adding some planters to the west elevation of the same charac.
ter as used on the sloped side. Mr. Nagel agreed to do this. Mr. Bates asked if
the building can be lower on the property, but Mr. Hagel pointed out that this was
not possible due to the sewer easement. With reference to the boat docks and marina,
Mr. Nagel explained that this has to have clearance with the Corp of Engineers, and
is outside the City, so it was not part of this presentation. It is not the inten-
tion of the developer to conceal the possibility of such a project, but at this
point it is an unknown.
Ms. Henick asked how the two required exits would effect the elevations. Mr. Hagel
respondecittiat sheet 4 shows these exits, as approved by the Fire Department. The
exits off the deck and those through the corridor suffice for that requirement.
The corridors will be sprinkled. The heating will be by forced air, and the unit
will be located in the storage area, as shown on Sheet 2.
Jim Estes, 525 Furnace Street, reported that he has been overwhelmed by the amount
"'nf controversy his project has caused. He did a Personal survey of the neighbors
last weekend and presented a signed petition in favor of his project. Of the four
Clients that Mr. Roschette had said he represented in opposition, two Objected
because they felt it would obstruct their view, but since that is not the case they
no longer object. The objections raised were due to the bike path and not the
4, building. Twenty-four signatures were on the petition (Exhibit Y).
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD :MEETING OCTOBER, 6, 1981 PAGE 5
Referring to Mr. Roschette's testimony, Mr. Estes stated that his View will not be
affected; the variance is justified because the site cannot be built other than on
ill the basis presented; the bike path is not wanted by any of the neighbors including
Mr. Estes. He feels the privacy of the neighbors as well as the new residents Would
be destroyed. Since the Comprehensive Plan states that the bike path is "preferred
but not mandatory" there would be no, legal reason to include it. He maintained that
the pathway should be decided upon before a developer is` involVed. Mr. Este; is
opposed to Condition 12, and appealed to the Board to place the bike path on furnace
Street.
Mr. Henick reminded Mr. Estes that there are others in the Greenway who have a bike
path running across their properties.
In response to Mr. Bate's question regarding emergency access, Mr. Estes assured him
that this was not a problem.
Jerry O'Donnell , 475 Furnace Street, lives next door to the property, and has 'looked
at the plans from every direction and feels it is a good plan. With reference to Condi-
tion 12, he feels this approach is putting the cart before the horse, and is being done
wrong. Feasibility should be done first, and the layout of the bike path should by
determined. The Comprehensive Plan was proposed by the City, but this interpretation
infringes on the applicant's Constitutional rights;
Opposition
Hugh Dwight, 397 Furnace Street, lives adjacent to Mr. Estes property. He presented
a letter in opposition to the bike path that has been signed by everyone on Furnace
• Street, including Mr. Estes, up to the cement plant-(Exhibit Z) . He presented a map to
the Board explaining, the problems of attempting to run a bike path through the
properties.
Mar eurite Leche, reviewed the past testimony she has given before various bodies of
t,e` City in support of her interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan and other processes
necessary for changes on her properties. She declared that Goal 14 has been explored
thoroughly on this type of application (testimony of 8-29-76) , and that the type of
easement the Greenway is meant to be is a "look-at" and not a "use" easement. Referring
to the native vegetation, she said the trees are primarily willows, and they can take
extensive flooding, where other types of plants cannot. It is her contention that the
landscape plan will not hold up because of the improper selection of Vegetation. Re-
ferring to Exhibits "E" and "D", she alleged that these documents do not show the true
high water line. She reiterated her statement earlier that Mr. Roschette's testimony
should be waived. She presented the original Old Town Study of October, 1974,
Donna Dwight, 397 Furnace Street, asked if the staff had heard the outcome of the Park
and Recreation decision on the bike path. Mr. Galante responded that this was a sepa-
rate issue, but he did not have the decision. Ms. Dwight reported that she had attended
their meeting, on last Wednesday, and the bike path was given a low priority,
James SellersL 455 Furnace Street, declared that this is a nice project, and will be an
asset to the community. He remarked that if other areas have bike paths, through their
property, they are more than likely having many problems because of it. The path would
be a detriment and would cause a hardship on the people living in the area.
Jerry O'Donnell referring to the large trees shown on the site plan, would like it to
be a condition of approval that they be saved.
. r
,,. 5. r
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OCTOBER '5,..1981 PAGE 6
Rebuttal
5 Mr. Hagel assured Mr. O'Donnell that the trees he referred to would be preserved.
Mr. Galante read excerpts from the LCDC Goals and Guidelines Goals 5, 8, and 15
are applicable. The document was passed to the Board for examination.
Ms. Renick stated that she did not feel this was a good location for a bike path,
and Condition 12 should be removed from the staff report. Ms. Petrie responded
to the COOT letter, and concurred with Ms. Henick's view of the bike path, stating
that it is ludicrous when Rogers Park is next door. She agrees agrees with
the idea in the letter from ODOT, but can't agree that it is possible. She inter-
prets that Mr. Lilly is only requesting, and it is not required. She does not
feel the vegetation question is important enough to change the landscape plan Pre-
sented, She is in favor of deleting Condition #12,
Mr. 'Galante ,explained that the view easement does not mean there has to be public
access.
Mr. Bates felt the bike path was inappropriate because of the topography as well
as the neighborhood objection. This item can be reviewed at the final presenta-
tion, giving the staff a chance to come up with a better idea. Ms. Henick
appealed to the City to look at things with a long range over-view, and not try
to develop in a piece-meal way based on conceptual ideas, The variance and the
final approval can be settled at the same time.
Mr. Bates claimed the plans need to be coordinated better. Revisions should be
4111 considered as discussed earlier. The elements should be simplified. The roof
pitches are different, and different material for the roof should be considered.
The canvass canopy should be reconsidered. The lighting should he resubmitted,
with something other than incandescent units used.
Ms. Petrie moved for preliminary approval of DR 15-81 with the following condi-
tions applying;
(Some of the conditions have already been addressed, but Ms. Petrie asked that they
be entered into record)..
1 . That the applicant sign a nonremonstrance agreement to allow future improvement
along Furnace Street, and the sidewalk be 5 feet wide.
2. That the 8" bronze letters be used as the sign dimensions, as shown
3. That the grading agree with the stamped topographic and boundry survey which
was submitted.
4. That drainage be constructed to the specifications and approval of the City
Engineer.
5. That the construction schedule of March 1 , 1982 (beginning) to September 1 ,
1982 (completion) be accepted.
tonight beaccepted.
6. That the color board as submitted onigh
4110 7. That a detailed lighting plan be submitted and the degree of illumination:con-
form with the City Code, and that it be approved by ;the staff.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 5, 1981 PAGE 7
8. That the exits be properly dimensioned for safety and Code on all the stairs,
landings, and doors.
411 9. That the developer make every effort to preserve the fir trees on the southern
of Tax Lot 800 -- an arborist should be retained during the building period to
insure they are not damaged.
10. That planters be installed on the Furnace Street side, as discussed earlier in
this hearing,
11 . The landscape plan is acceptable, but should be revised if further input by the
Board or staff requires it,
1 Ms. Eslick asked to add that other than incandenscent lighting be submitted for the
Parking lot and that the garage roofs be designed to be compatible in slope with
the main structure.
Mr. Bates asked that the catch basin be placed somewhere more acceptable than at the
front entrance as shown on the grading plan.
Mr. Galante noted that the bike path should be removed from the landscape plan. The
six shore pines are not enough, and, more should be added for screening. The two
mugho pines along the walkway are insignificant, and other plantings are not enough
to create an effect, provide screening or to give stability to sloped areas. The
pathway down to the Willamette River is not adequately detailed to reduce erosion*
and the use of bark dust, or bark chips should not be allowed as they can be carried
into the river during flooding.
410 Mr. Eslick felt the proportions along the river front, and the cantelevering should
, be changed and the roof should be more textured. Mr. Eslick seconded the motion
for preliminary approval with conditions as outlined and modified above. The motion
passed unanimously.
The Board agreed that the variance could not properly be discussed at this meeting
due to lack of proper public notice. It will be taken up at the next meeting along
with the final submission of DR 15-81 .
GENERAL PLANNING
None
OTHER BUSINESS
None
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
4
0,4 None
Ms. Petrie will not attend the next meeting due to other obligations.
ADJOURNMENT
4 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11100 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
t'4°
Bever y E. C ghill 4011-,-
*
11111, i
V
.�.�ux+ a ...,u ., 'i .,w „k ,., s,�.¢,�.. ..,rqk�g.7�"b�,. .._ '..a ...�.� ,. .}' a s. a.•`es��s .. .. ,
a01 r� M1G
; ::F/te .�R1 a 'x !e -g°u y „ 'r x as ta # �' „•,,t i/t .". • , 4
>* tC► 'J�F.�4.�' ..
i M9 eaws; w. -� c,a
x3w- asn.
DEVELOPMEN'1 REVIEW BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 19, 1981 PAOB 1
The Development Review Board meeting of October. 19, 1,981 was called to order
at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Robert Bonney. Development iteview Board members
present were: Rich•'rd Eslick, Frank Clarke:, Robert Bonney, haanf, irate», and
Bede~ Nishimura. Shirley Petrie and ;loon Benick were absent,. Staff naemherrl
present were: Robert Galante, City Planner; Lori Maastra►atonio-Meuser, Ul,lty
Planner; Mark Pil:11od, Deputy City Attorney; Alex Areseniev, Asaiatant City
Engineer; and Beverly Coghill, Secretary.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 5 1981_ MEETING
Mr. Galante pointed out two errors in the minutes of October 5, 1981 , but
Stated that the minutes had been revised and were avail.ah1e ;In their cor.rec:ted
form.- 'These errors were on page I,, the names of Board iuenaberaa in attendance
had been left out, and the absent members erroneously listed an present, and
on page 5 the testimony' or Donna Dwight had been Left out and the testimony
attributed to her was properly that of lames Sell(irs. Mr. Bates asked that
paago 7, Item tl, be changed to indicate that the landscape plan could be
rons,Ldered and revised. Mr. Eslick moved for approval of the minutes with
the above noted corrections. The`motion was seconded and parsed unanimously.
1*i?`P T i ONS ANI1 COl�ihrllN7 CA'l` ON5 - None.
UNCT.NCSUED BUSINESS
•
1)R 15-80 g, I tt n8er.) -- To consider a request by Roy Ettinger for design
review approval to allow modifications, including; an add Lt;Iunn I. level of park-
ing, to the previously-approved plans for, a 35-foot high (to re~nm;Ln the same)
office building located on the east side of State Street north and adjacent
to the Chevron station (Tax Lot 6600 of Tax Map 2 L E 3T)1))
Mr. Galante presented the staff 'report,, reviewing; pest action on the applirant'a#'
requests. Page 3 of the report illustrates the parking approved originally,
and page 4 illustrates the new proposal. The. staff feels the grade is in excess
,
of 15% (20% or higher) , and is not acceptable,. Two cars could be exiting a at;
the same time, under the new plan, and that would be a dangerous situation,
There would be a reduction of one street tree. The applicant has, however:
asked to make up for this loss by the addition, of more landscaping on the'
upper decks. Staff believes, that based on the drawings presented tonight,
II
the request should he denied.
If an automatic gate were i,nstall,ecl, it was suggested that the danger of two
cars exiting s:L► u1 taneoua y, might be overcome, The circulation is not con
sLdered aa►c.
RtayMCtt:In G llel .c ant,, stated that the plan lie has presented for the parking
is similar to the Lakeview Plazas concept. The removal of the street tree
should not present e' problem, as he wILL replace it in a different place on
the site. The new proposal will allow 60 cars instead of 34, and therefore
the building wil1 be more marketable. Ile agreed with Mr. Bates' suggestion.
lie explained how the square footage has been expanded, and presented the new
plan to the Board. lie urged that the new ,floor plan he approved Whether or
not the parking lot is accepted by the Board. Mr. Bates asked about the handicap
� r ' 1
DEVELOPMENT1t1aV>:rW, BOARD MEETINGOC1p13EK 19, 1981 ;aAGI, 2
requirements, noting that they are not indicated on the plans. He pointed
411 out discrepancies in Drawings A-8 and A-7, and that the parapet is not dimen-
sioned on A--6. The handicap access requirement to the building due to the grade
would be difficult to satisfy. The problem of impaired vision was pointed out
by Mr. Es,tick and Mr. Bates. Mr, Benney's position was that no grade over
15% should ba considered. Me. Ettinger appealed to the Board that this should
be workable as he has presented it, as it is Working with these! #teeper grades
at the Lakeside Plaza bui:I.c1.Lng. Mr. Clarke and Mr. l3ateas remarked that they
felt that Lakeside Plaza was not a good example of proper parking; and that
i.t was dangerous.
Opposition - 'iNone,
Mr. cnlante said there were many problems created by the t.hangos. Security
would be jeopardized due to the change io the lobby loe at:Ion, and surveillance
would be difficult into the parking area.
Mr. Bates remarked that because the plans are not the ones originally approved,
it would be very difficult to review them properly at tonight's meeting. Nothi ,;'.`
is complete #t$ it wall be in the final project. The tonec'Jite,rci:L idea might be
acceptable, but the Board cannot rule on unknown factors, Mr, Bonney stated
that too much was being crowded onto the small l.ot, and the second level of
Parking was not as good plan. Mr. Eslick noted that there was no color or material
hoard presented.
Nt. Bites moved toe denial of the request as presented, Mr. Eslick seconded the
4,1 motion and it passed unanimously.
Mr. Bates advised the applicant that With modifications tlae request could come
hack, but safer accesses should be planned, and the.ent:ere plan_ should be re-
viewed and resubmitted with all the details Workeed out for proper, review. Mr.
Galante suggested that the slope of the parking will have to be acceptable to
the City Engineering Department, and the color and material board, along with
properly scaled drawings should be formulated. Mr. Eslick noted that :Cf the
height of the parapet is lowered, mechanical units will need to be screened.
Mr. Galante advised the applicant that he will have to submit. his plans for
review by staff before they can Come before the hoard:
DR 14-79 1vendell) -.. To consider. a request by the 1loilman Company for modifi-
cations to al,law the addition of a 132 sq. ft. den to tour residence units
located at the east end of Devonshire (Tax Lots 100 and 200 of Tax Map 2 1E 8131)) ,
Three additional, trees will be required to be cut.
Mr. Galante referred the Board to the new Development Ordinances that they had
received at this meeting, which are :Ln effect. This project would he allowed
to be reviewed and approved administratively by staff, page 14, section 49.125,
Mr. Galante 'reviewed the request.
TedyAr Tna zajpl,ieaait, explained past action, and stated that he agrees with staff
conditions.
Mr. Galante suggested this teem be used as a precedent for the Board to allow
the staff to approve similar requests administratively, Mr, Bates so moved.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
a oaf ..m y.
Y r . • py
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OCTOBER .19, 1981 RAGE 3
41, SIGN APPROVALS
Charles_ Kaad carwXish. Mr. Bonney abstained from consideration of this item.
Mike yCarull i, Columbia Sign*Co. , presented a drawing of the proposed sign, and
reviewed the past action on the request. The exi.st:ing :Signs have been changed
as requested by the Board. tie presented photos of the signs. The, pricing sign
('Photo A) is needed by the applicant, but will be 2 feet shorter and combined
with Photo B. Photo A ;and B will. be color coordinated with the other, signs.
Photo C shows a sign that will be eliminated. Mr. Bates asked i r the pricing
sign could be located on the building. Mr. Cart.t:Ili explained that it would
not work well on the building,i.ng, and would have less of a visual impact if it.
were allowed as requested. Mr. Bates asked if the +appl,icant had considered
painting signs on the ground. Mr.. Carui Li, pointed out that due to the slope,
Signs would not work well on the ground. Mr. Eslick suggested combining the
signs in Photos A and B. Because some people only want to vacuum their cars,
the signs would not work we.Ll combined, according to Mr. Car,uLU . He pointed
e and � � directional si adds
L c n� t undersized, Ia pylon sign is t .
aut. that t~hc, existing I y tn , <Lt, ►tn ., 8
a safety factor.
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser remarked that staff feels this is a good proposal , hut_
a 'variance is necessary because there are more than two ground signs. There
will, be a total of four signs, if approval is given. Mr. (fates felt that two
of the signs could be combined, so there would be only two ground signs and
the entrance sign.
Mr. Eslick moved for approval, of the 6 sq. ft. entrance sign, and that sign A
be cut down by 2 feet and unified with Sign l, and color coordinated with the
black and white matrix sign, and that sign C be omitted. The revised A and B
sign is to be submitted to staff for approval. The motion wa i seconded and
passed, with all Board members voting .in favor, except Mr. Bonney, who abstained.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VAR 17-81 (Otak and Associates)` was withdrawn from tonight's agenda.
VAR 20-81 (Clarence and Adel.le Jenike) -- To consider a request by Clarence and
Aclel.le Jenike for approval of a variance to reduce the required 25-foot rear
yard setback to 20 feet and to reduce the required 20-foot side yard setback
to 14 feet. The site is located at 208 Ash Street (Tax Lot 3000, Tax Map 2 III, l0I)A)
Ms. Mastrantonio-Mouser presented the staff report and passed elevation plans
to the Board for review (Exhibit C).
Adelle Jenike, as licant, explained that the only neighbor that is contiguous
to her property has written a letter In support of the request. (Mrs. Wi.l.liam,
Donnelly, 980 Lund (Exhibit E )) .
92.122.81tiea - None.
Ms. Nishimura moved for approval of the application with staff conditions applying.
The, metipn was, seconded and passed unanimously.
rt
r
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 19, 1981` PAQX 4
DR 5-81 (Texaco Inc.) To consider a request by 'Texaco Inc. .for design° review
approval of acanopy structure and landscaping proposed for an existing, 8' drvice
station :Located at the northwest corner of Second and "A" Avenue (Tax l.,ot 3300
of 'Pax Map 2 1 E 3DD) .
Mr. Galante presented tlae site plans, clevnt;l.on plans, and mator.;i,al board far
rev;iew Exhibl't "C", tine traffic' engilloom's analysis was prosetated. Mr. Galanto
reported that an addl,t.i.onul. condition of approvtal. (flea) shou;l,cl be added, stratt.ni
that conditions set: forth by tho Planning Commission for Cfl /4-81 should ba fail,
fillad, Mr. liates aAlced if a now landscape 'plan Was needed by staff, Mr. 0,11anto
replied that it wake r.ecitrir,ed.
Robert WanGll,,er� Lc inr, stated that lie would prefer. to keep the two dr,:Lvcaways
iin"t1". 'Clio c:lasngo ,Ln the driveway on Second is no prob:lxm. 11e prese:nt(.Iad 111.4
land4c.ope and drainage plan '(Exhibits 11_ and T) . lie f r.els the entxaoee suns
ructuc�stecl are nc:cessnry to Inform the publ,ic`or-- the loctatfon of the acctzss
chanL,e.
Mr. 1iate,.4 asked if the matev,Lal on the edge of the propai ty and the scle-
walk wtao asphalt. Mr. C,alanto replied that It was, mid the City right-of-way �
would require a s .dewal.k. '.file landscape plan shoul.cl show the walk and Strout
trees. Mr Ar.soniev could see no problems w:101 the drainage plan as presented
by the applicant
Mr. lIntes asked if the tapper portion of the .1andscope plan coilld be "f34pp d
over". lie clad not feel. the ;Landscaping by Lhe host Room areas was necassary.
U? os 15t;[.on - None,
Mr. Bates moved for. approval. OF the request: with staff c.ond3,t:fons applying,
and that n revised landscape plan be submitted to that fill Lis ract;lon of Staff,
and that trite new conch:LOn, #4, be incl.aacled. 9'lic c:edtir :Lap sicil.ng .L;s to be
deleted, 'Tile 5 foot Irandscape buffer should be mdvcld to tho Other Ls
of
the lot, and planting 'should be taken out to the slclewa lk area. When streot
trees are considered they shoaald be of a type that will. not eatase a visual
barrier.
The motion was seconded and passed unnilimous:ly.
(,'rNRRAL PLANNING
The Board was urlred to study tilt new ordinances. Mr, . Galante gave,, a brie
outl..Laac of tlae most pertinent items to chefs positfonts.
Page 10, 49.090, 4a, 4c, and 4d.
Page 13, 49.1,10, concurrent permits.
49. 120, ,f'utcare street plans,
49.125, ctuthOrity of: tale .Staff to grant administrative changes.
lcas,e 20, Major development procedures. Pat Barnum will be presenting;
Subdivision requirements to tale Board, so they may become
familiar with these requirements.
Page 32, 49.500, variance p;mnedures.
page 39, Illustrative sodddn., Appeals and other procedures.
Section 23 disaussed tile: eXtsting codes loci the. cticnages
� that have iseen.:maade:
pTt11';i~ 13US�N�S� a
r
r
, r`�r ,.. .,d , ��,. �.c' ��Y r„#4 � ^`�P, ,;�+1 ., �"�. �'�, fir• ,
�mi ten•` w
,. a
, . .
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING- OCTOBER 19, 1981 ' PAGE 5
Mr. ' . -
(nlanLe reviewed recent actions by the City Council.
, .
•
Mr. Bates stressed,. the importance for aPplicantsto submit drawings and tither
,
data to staff well in advance of the meetings, so these documents can be I
reviewed without the pressure of trying to, analyze them duriu8 the jileetifigs,
He felt- a policy should, be made and enforced on the matter. Mr ..Bats questioned .,
the lenient time allowed for public, testimony in some cases. Mr. Pilliod road
the policy for time limits. Mr. Eslick advocated not aceepting any Material
for review if it iS presented the night of a meeting, lie'reels it is the burden
of the applicant to submit his material in a timely manner. Mr. Tilliod referred
the Board to the, new 'endc for public hearings, page 43.
ADJOURNMENT H
There being no further business, the meeting Was adjourned at 9',50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, ,
_.........-
lieverl.y 1?,.. Cog11:1_11.
/
Secretary
F .
410
p
. •
• , . -• . .
.,
-
0. ' . 7 41 • * ,
4 i. , -.0.•*•,•‘*".'- -1.,,,'•-,,,-, . ..... •,:,. ... ...,!'l .1, .,,,,,,,._,4 1:. , . .-1.-•+;i,,..,,..,,e,,T.4,1 .i.,, ,.,,,,,,416--.,,...‘•,,ry;•44A... .,,, i .,_,,,_,,4v7,,,,,,,..:1:,8,., . „:,gh',A.; o,,,i,,,,,,,,,...d,,,,,,.:„„:„.,
1
1
1
1
.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 2, 1981 Page 1
110
The Development Review Board meet:,.ng of November 2, 1981 was called to
order 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Robert: Bonney. Development Review Board
members present were: Shirley Petrie, Robert Bonney, Lang Bates, and
Bede Nishimura. Absent were: Richard Eslick, Joan Henick, and Frank
Clarke. Staff members present were: Robert Galante, City Planner; Lori
Mastrantonio-Meuser, City Planner; Mark Pilliad, Deputy City Attorney;
and Beverly Coghill, Secretary.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19, 1981
The approval of minutes was delayed until after public hearings.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None.
SIGN APPROVALS, - None ,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VAR 25-81 (Philip ,Grattan)--To consider a request by Philip Grattan for
approval of a variance to reduce the required; 20-foot-front yard setback
to 12 feet at 1161 Upper Devon (Tax Lot 6700, Tax Map 2 lE 15413) . Ms.
Mastrantonio-Meuser. presented the staff report, explaining that the
JO original property line (Exhibit B) ac tually went through part of the
garage. The applicant bought a 7-foot wide strip of land along the
western boundary line of the site and has applied for a lot-line
adjustment. If approved, this variance will allow a 12-foot front yard
setback from the existing structure.
M • Bonney questioned the need for a survey if this is after the fact.
Mr. Galante responded that a survey is always required to be sure there
are "no surprises".
Petrie moved for approval with staff recommendations applying. The
motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
DR 15-81 (James R. Estes)--To consider a request by James R. Estes for
final Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 10-unit
condominium project and to allow this development within the Willamette
Greenway. In addition, a request for approval of a variance to the
35-foot height restriction to a31or: a 40-foot structure. The site is
located at 525 Furnace Street (Tar:: Lot 900) Tax Map ? lE 11BC).
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser presented the staff report, indicating that an
additional Exhibit from the State Fire Marshal dated October. 26, 1981
should be added to the record (Exhibit BB) . The City will forward this
to the State and the approval will come from the State. The building as
ost
DEVELOPMENT REVIEN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 1981 PAGE 2
it is being proposed is a Type 5. The new roof material, glazed concrete
tile, was presented for approval (Exhibit R-1). The revised Landscape
plan (Exhibit 0-2) , and revised lighting plan have been submitted
(Exhibit 0-2) . The notice to neighbors on the variance wan done as
required (Exhi bit W-1) ,
Mr. Bates asked if the State does not approve the building, will. It have
to :costa back to the Board. Ms:. Mastrantonio-Meurer responded that the
staff could review the project if there were changes required. She
clarified that t„7 applicant had submitted the building as a Type 5, and
that Is what the ,tard is reviewing tonight. Staff has not had a chance
to review the new landscape plan as yet.
Charles Bagel, 7035 SW Hampton, g _, reviewed the
Tigard, applicant architect.,
concerns of the Board from peat meetings. He stated the lii;httnp, has
been approved by the City for use of sodium lights in the parking lot.
The new landscape plan was reviewed, and the additional pines at the base
of the building should grow from 12 feet to :L4 feet, and an addition of 3
feet of planting will be in this location (Sheets 7 and 9). The planting
on the front has been revised, and the roof material has been changed to
tile. The planting in the 100-foot-flood level has been changed to
install material that will not be harmed by flooding, and the lawn area
has been decreased. The fire codes have all been met► Mr. iioteaa asked
if eht tile presented also could be obtained in ac dull finish. Mr, . Hagel
® responded that it can, but the glossier finish was chosen for i,ts better
resistance to moss, and the fact that it would become duller within six
months.
Marguerite Teethe, PO Box 26, is concerned that the staff Is using the
term "arborist" indiscriminately, and questions whether a licensed
arborist is needed for this project. She feels that en accredited
landscape architect would suffice.
Mr. Galante agreed that for this small project, a landscape architect
would be appropriate . Ms. Petrie asked for a definition of a, smrll.1
project. Mr. Galante answered that there was no specific dividing line,
but that, if preservation of trees was done to staff fa satisfaction on
this project, they could use a landscape architect instead of an
arborist. The Board concurred on this point'.
OL posiiton
Ed Iiocliette , 144 Wilbur, submitted the same objections that he had voiced
in past meetings, and asked that the record show that he is still opposed
for the same reasons, referring to design, size, and LCDC Goal 15. The
hardship has not been proven in allowing the variance . Specifically, the
Greenway Goals have not been adequately addressed by the Board.
Heidi McLean, 159 Ladd, did not approve of the tile roof, and said she
will be looking down upon it. The cream stucco is completely out of
w
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING NOVEMi3ER 2, 1981 PAGE 3
character for the neighborhood. She considers the building a gross
intrusion on her privacy and livability, and this will affect the value
of her property.
Kathryn Beaumont, 520 9th Street, rend a written statement, as spokesman
for the Conservancy Commission, appealing to the Board to uphold the bike
path requirement,
Nancy Rochette , 144 Wilbur, asked if any of the Hoard members had visited
the site. They all had done so. She asked for a definition of
"compatibility" in the neighborhood. Mr. Galante explained that n-tzes,
shapes, colors , and materials can vary to a considerable extent. This
building is compatible with a number of recent structures in the Design
District, and the Comprehensive Plan allows for a higher density. Some
of the design factors have been allowed due to the sloping nature of the
site.
t Lee Raish, 412 Furnace, asked why this project needs so many Variances,
and suggested tha applicant consider building a duplex on the Elite. She
I objected to the 6-atory Spanish structure, and asked if this was planned
Just to make the property pay off.
Mr. Galante pointed out that only one variance was being sought, and that
was for the height due to the shape of the lot, This is the same as
originally requested, 40 feet.
Rebuttal
Maruerite Leche pointed out that the neighborhood is not just one block,
and that there are all kinds of architecture in, the area. The George
Rogers house is of stucco, She insisted the Conservancy Commission is
out of Order, as the bike path question has already been considered and '
decided upon. She doubts that a bike path could be located on the
property in any case , due to the terrain. I
Mr. Bagel clarified that this project will be 60 feet from the street,
and 8 feet lower than the adjacent house.
Mr. Bates asked if the roof pitches had been changed to be the same
throughout, and whether other material than stucco had been considered.
Mr. Nagel assured him that the roof pitches were changed as asked, and
the applicant feels that stucco is the best material for the structure.
He contended that most of the building would not be visible to the
1' neighbors. kiss Nishimura asked if a different color for the roof had
been considered. Me. Nagel responded that another color could be esod,
but it would not be soon that much.
Mr• Galante observed that the bike; path had been Shown en the original.
request, but it was not known whether or not it would be feasible. The
City had wanted to preserve the opportunity to place the path at some
111, tiaate in the future if possible.
DEVELOPMENT REV IEv4 BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 2 1981 PAGE 4
•
Mr. Bates suggested the variance issue be addressed first. Mr. Galante
explained the UDC code defined this as a 40 foot building, but it won' t
exceed 32 feet as seen from the street.
Mr. Bates moved for approval of the height variance. The motion was
seconded and passed unanimously.
The Board concurred that Condition ll3 requiring an arborist should be
changed to require a landscape carrhiter t.
Mr. Bates contended- that something besides the shore pines be iuntalled
at the base of the building. He was concerned about the gloss on Vhe
tile, preferring a duller finish in a rust-brown color• He would like
wood siding can the building. Ms. Petrie suggested the flood plain level
be specified according to the Corps of Engineers maps, so there will be
no question as to which map was used.
Ms. Petrie moved for final approval of DR 15-81 with the recommendations
of staff a,rpo.lying. Condition #3. should he changed to request a
landscape architect be retained (not arborist) , and; that. a revised
landscape plan be submitted, and that the bark dust be eliminated (to
satisfaction of staff). The roof tile should be toned down to a
non-glassy material. The 100-year ;Flood plain level is to be based on
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maps.
11,
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
GENERAL PLANNING
Mr• Galante presented a letter from City Planner Sandi Young, asking for
input from the Board regarding height limitations within the City. Mr.
Galante volunteered to research this item, and inform the Board of his
findings. Mr. Bates suggested that the City of Portland would he n good
source for that research.
CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS
Mr. Galante reported on, the Conservancy Commission report and the elderly
housing fee reduction, in Marrch, 1982 the Development review Board will
have their annual meeting with the Council.
As a matter of record, Ms. Petrie announced that she objected to third
party input in a public hearing (as had taken place tonight) . The Board
agreed that it is not their place to judge that type of statement, and
compared it to accepting petitions as a matter of record.
Aiik APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 19, 1981 MINUTES
Mr. Bated moved for approval of the minutes of October 19, 1981, without
corrections. The motion was seconded, and passed with all Board members
voting in favor except Ms. Petrie, who abstained.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 2, 1981 FACE
FINDINGS
VAR 20-81 were approved unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further businetss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted.
r
Beverly E. C ghi,.i 1 /I2ls-�"
Secretary
0031P
41110
110
li
it
1
.
s•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I�
I .. ., ,, .,....„..,,.,,,,.,. ,..,..e . .._. ..,, w,.su., „�.1,1.. ..,...r..c 3,...,..... . ,iw;.1W# ,..a...... rS ar..L.,.s..=is..ik k,.4,-;.-1,,,; r.w •d:+ ,au4,4
• DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1981 PAGE i,
The Development Review Board meeting of November 16, 1981 was called to ardor
at 7;35 p.m. by Chairman Robert Bonney. r)evelopMent Review Board membcr,i
present were: Shirley Petrie, Lang Bates, Robert Bonney, Bed Nishimura,
Joan fon.lc,k and Richard rslic)c. Prank Clarke was abeent. Staff members
Present were; Robert Galante, City Planner; Lori Mastrantonio-Met;ter, City
Planner; Mark Pilliod, Deputy City Attorney; and Beverly_ Coghill, Secretary+
APPROVAL OP MINUTES OP NOVEMBER 2, 1981
The approval of minutes was delay d until after the pubi:le hearings.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNI')W'IONS - None.
UNVINIS)IED BUSINESS .. None.
SIGN APPROVALS
Ivar Forstad, 382 N. State, Tailor Shop, requested a 42" x 40" sign, which in
already in place. The ordinance allows 2' x 20' Signs without Board
approval; however, the sign in question must be approved by the Development
Review Board. Pictures of the e„iating sign were prefaentnd. Mr. ianl.i,e:k
moved for approval of the sign, The motion was seconded and peened
unanimously.
SPUBLIC UtARrNGE3
VAR 23-81 (belly R. and Lucinda A. Belles) -- To consider a request by kelly
R. and Lucinda A. Bolles for approval of a variance to reduce the required
30-foot front yard setback to 15 feet. The site is located at 1361
GLenmorrie Road (Tax Lot 3400, Tax Map 2 lE 15AA).
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meurer presented the staff report and plans for the
structure (Exhibit C) . An additional condition for approval should be added,
requesting an easement: for the neighbor to cross the property. The staff
also recommends that the driveway be moved so there is lose pavement required.
Proponents - The applicant was not in attendance.
Opposition - None.
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meurer sated the appl .cztnt has not exp.esued any opposition
to the conditions of staff.
MS. Renick moved for approval of the request with staff recommendations
applying, and an additional condition regarding the easement. The language
ofi the condition (#5) is to be formulated by staff.
The motion wan seconded and passed unanimously.
DL'VEtOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1981 PAGE 2
ash
INF DR 42-77 (G.T. McDermott. and Frazier. Realty Inc. ) -- To cone Hu►: a request by
G.T. McDermott and Frazier Realty Inc. for modifications to pruviously
approved plans and cesnditions to allow the construction of sa now fence, tc
revise the tree cutting application, and to revise the development schedule,
?1 revised landscape plan is proposed fOr they site located a t, 350 Furnace
Street (Tax Lot 220 of Tax Map 2 lF' l0AD)
Mr. Galante presented the staff report and gave a brief history of the
project. Be presented a plan for the tree cutting. ,A plan for the detail of
the mailboxes (Exhibit LL) , and a material sample for the shake reef, and
color sample for shutters and iron Work, doors and garage doors (off-white) ,
and a brick sample intended fOr use on the fence posts was resented (Exhibit
MM). Mr. Galante pointed out that the drawing Of the mailboxes should
include a side elevation, and a mere specific construction schedule should be
submitted. The plant materials specified are quality Choices, but there are
no street trees shown. Exhibit EE shows the lack of landscaping between the
property and; curb lines. Some of these areas should be landscaped' and some
will be paved sidewalks. The plan does not show planting sizes, and some
plants Shown are not easily available. If there are changes in the
landscaping, then a new irrigation plan should be submitted. One tree is
located differently on tine new plan. The large +loodar cedar on Wilbur is now
planned to be cut by the applicant, and staff feels this should net be
allowed, as it is a significant tree. The existing fence is not in good
condition at this time, and staff feels a new fence could be inntalled, but
With additional landscaping. Mr. Bonney noted that the staff report called
glir for landscape architect in place of an arboriet. Mr. Galante replied that
not many trees have been left on the site, and it, is felt that a landscape
architect could oversee the project adequately.
Mr. Eslick asked for a review of what has transpired since the first
landscape plan was approved. Mr. Galante detailed the action of the
applicant, and that some of the trees and shrubs were cut in violation of the
originally approved plans. A tree cutting permit had been applied for, but
not granted. Before the permit could be granted, the applicant was to go to
staff with the proposal, and it would then be reviewed under unfinished
Business. The applicant bad been asked to stop work on the site, but they
had continued. Finally, an injunction was filed against the applicant in
order to stop him from continuing work until the matter could be resolved.
Ms. Petrie noted that the wording states the tree cutting was to be
considered by staff, but not that it was mandatory_. The Board villa staff
concurred that the conditions were mandatory, and could not be construed
otherwise.
Walter Durham, Jr. , spoke for himself and the other two principals, Mr.
Frazier and M . McDermott. It was his stand that the applicant has conformed
to the 12 conditions of approval from the May, 1980 meeting. The tree
cutting permit was obtained in 1977, according to Mr. Durham, so they deny
they have violated the tree cUti:ing permit. He presented a section of one of
the trees cut, which showed rotted areas► He expressed his surprise at being
A delayed on working on the project due teethe requirement for approval of the
landscape plan. He expounded on the credentials of the team involved in
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW I30ARt) MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1981 PAGE 3
constructing the project; Mr. Sundeleaf, architect; Ms. Lech°, landscape
architect; and Mr. Bong, project manager. Be asked the Board to consider
that with this team working on the project they be allowed to continue the
project and Present the landscape and irrigation ,plans after the units are
built. The schedule for Building C (which is the first phase) calls for
completion within G to 8 months after permits are issued, The ether
buildings will not be scheduled for development until the market is tested,
The cost of the buildings has gone up considerably due to the delays caused
by the City. Be appealed to the Board to waive the need to screen the
mechanical units, as they will hot be seen from outside the project. lie
specifically pointed out that Mr. Sundeleaf is accredited as an A.I.A.'
architect, and is not just a designer, and that Ms, Leche in an accredited
landscape architect with a degree from Oregon State University. Mr. Durham
questioned the right of the City or, Development Review Board to interfere
with the qualified people on his staff, fearing that neither had the
knowledge and qualifications to judge their work. Be talked about the merits
of the Colonial facades, and the good intentions of the developer, ntresring
that Poch highly regarded and talented professionals, as are involved on the
project, should be beyond the usual supervision of the City.
Mr, Bonney responded to Mr. Durham's Comments 'by outlining the duties and
responsibilities of the Development Review Board. Be explained that it is a
requirement of the Board to uphold the laws and ordinances of the City, and
the same limitations are put on all projects. These policies area Opplied
consistently, .and the talent or prestige of such people Is net A factor. L,'or
4110 informational purposes, there are architects, engineers, and others
knowledgeable In development and building on the Board. Mr. BBonney reminded
the applicant that landscape, irrigation, and construction schedules are
required.
Mr. Durham offered to take the Board to other sites designed by Mrt. Sundeleaf
to illustrate their quality. Mr. Bonney insisted that the matter did not
involve other Sites, and the Board could only entertain what wad regUestoet
for this particular project. Mr. Durham argued that to insist on the
landscape and irrigation plan before the buildings were complete wad putting
the "cart before the horr,a.1e
Mr. Bonney declared that if the applicant had arguments about procedure
regarding the Board', he could taker it to City Council. He stressed that
whatever happened as far as the court decision, wan concerned wan not to ho tt
consideration of the Board.
Richard Sundeleaf, architect, emphasized that the fence design meets all the
codes of the'Cit yy, and the color chart► end detail of the mailboxes have been
submitted. The fence around the mechanical units will be the same detail as
the other fence, and the height will depend on the height of the mechanical
units.
Marguerite Leche, 105 furnace Street, landscape architect, referred to the
LCpc Goals, and that they specify that private property can be developed
Amk without har'rassment of the City. She submitted a letter from the County
lip Extension Agent addressing the necessity for an arborist to oversee projects
(Ekhibit NN) . When the original landscape plan was submitted, there were
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1981 PAGE 4
• misunderstandings on some of the plantings. Mrs. McDermott's private garden
material had been misplaced on the plan, and shown on the common grounds,
hls. Leche reviewed the landscape plan. Some of the original, plantings to. be
retained had overgrown the site. The "red" area shown on the new plan
submitted shows city property, and part of the street. The staff was In
error in asking the applicant to retain planting that is toe hLgh in this
area. She maintained that each shrub is located and described. Each
building unit in exactly the same, so they did not see Why drat?i.ln should he
provided for the entire site. Building D shows the plan for the overall
landscaping as typical. Some of the outside units will be offered to the
buyer with an option of adding a room or planting his own private cjarden
This would change the landacape plan. The planting outside the property
line, along the street would probably be in green. M . Leohe suggested a
tentative landscape plan be submitted. Mr. Galante maintained that ,a .final
plan must be submitted, according to code, so the staff can evaluate it and
use it to monitor development. The developer can come back with an
alternative plan if modifications are shown to be necessary. Mn. i,echc3
indicated that to plant: along the iron fence would not be compatible, since
this would detract from the colonial theme of the Project. She noted that
neither of the two Colonial type houses on Furnace Street in existence have
plantincis on the street side. she feels the doodar cedar and other' trues can
be saved. Soma of the trees that are tagged for cutting are in very had
shape. The shrubs along the street should net: be required, there in not
enough room for street trees, according to MS. Lech°. one of the parking
spaces has been; reduced for the preservttien of a large tree. Regarding the
41) misplacement of trees on the landscape plan, abe explained that thin wan an
oversight.
Mr. Eslick asked what the area becomes if it is not developed as a private
garden on the places so designated. Ms. Leoho responded that it would be
resolved after the tenant is known.
Mr. Galante contended that the applicant should submit plans for, landscaping
at least around the periphery of the site so staff can know what In to be
done. The private bays could be in lawn until the property ownerta request
otherwise, or u plan for an alternative to lawn for those areas should be
provided.
Ms. Petrie asked if the nine trees requested to be cut would stay until the
entire site is developed, or shall they be cut immediately. Mr. Galante
responded that the application recTuesta they be cut all at once, and if they
receive approval tonight, that could be done. He .re-emphasized that the
deodar cedar that is on the foundation line should be saved, Ho believed
special measures would be required to save the tree, as significant
excavation will occur in the root zone of the tract.
Walter Durham assured the Board that the architect would be art the site twice
a day, so would be able to oversee the savior of existing vegetation. Mr.
song has confirmed the six to eight month building schedule for t3u.i.ld,ing C.
The balance of the project could be forecast, and modified if necessary.
11/
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING NOVBMBER 16, 1981 PAGE 5
• Hugh Dwight, 397 furnace,• supports the approval of the application. He read
his letter into the record (Exhibit PP) .
opposition
Ed Rochette, 144 Wilbur Street, advised that he is the only person to speak
'so far that does not have a financial interest in the project, but he does
look at it from across the street, where his residence is located. In the
original application, it was stated that the proposed development would be
screened by the existing fence' and he objects to its removal. Contrary to
other opinions, there is landscaping in existence there, and it should be
retained.. Referring to the nine trees slated for cutting, the dune 2, 1980
report stated that the eteodar cedar, would not!, ever be removed. He presented
a petition in opposition (Exhibit 00) containing eight signatures, He
opposes the removal of the fringe vegetation
Lee Raish, 412 Furnace Street, presented a document containing excerpts from
previous meetings and staffrepor.ts, which guaranteed that vegetation and
trees would not be removed from the site. This document gave specific
information on the matter, which she did not read into the record due to its
length, but asked that it become a dart of the file (Exhibit QQ) . Ms. Raish
also presented a photo study of the site showing vegetation before the
applicant removed it, and the Present condition of the property (exhibit RR) .
Nancy Rochette, 144 wilbur Street, asked if there was an Old Town
ill Neighborhood Association in existence. Mr. Galantod replied that to his
knowledge there was none recognized. Ms. Rochette described her frustration
in trying to read the now landscape plan, and feels that it is incomplete and
unacceptable. Her trust in the integrity of the applicant and the City has
been shaken, due tc their disregard of conditions placed on the development.
She referred to the May 22, 1980 staff report regarding saving of the trees,
and another statement from the applicant regarding use of ivy. Referring to
the November 3, 1981 staff report in support of the iron fence, she has no
problems with the fence, but emphasized that it is unacceptable to her
without,plantings installed against it. She reminded the Board that the
support of the neighbors for this project was due to the guarantee that the
vegetation would net be removed. She would Prefer to look at trees than an
iron fence, no matter how handsome that fence may be. She feels the
applicant has not been honest in his promise to save existing plants and
trees.
Rebuttal
Mr. Durham presented photo views of the site taken three years ago.
Ms. Lech° stated that she has no vested interest in the project.
Public hearing was closed.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1981 PAGE 6
Ms. Renick remarked that she remembers that When this project came before the
Board there was extensive discussion on the trees, and saving vegetation wan
a requirement. She feels they cannot waiver from that stand of the
requirements for a landscape plan, or an irrigation plan. She asked if the
existing wire .fence was salvageable. Mr. Galante responded that he did not
know if it was salvageable, but it was in very poor condition, and the
vegetation against the fence has been cut extensively. If they retained the
fence, they would have to make additional cuts through the fence for accost.
The new fence is acceptable to staff if they place plantingn along it. He
suggested that if the Board aceepta the new fence, the applicant should be
required to retain the o14 fence and the vegetation until the structures are
Complete.
Mr. Bonney advised that the construction schedule for the phan:I ng of the
project must also be included, and not just for the initial building. ma.
Nishimura did not feel the Board could vote tonight without the completed
irrigation and landscape plans.
Mr. Bates counseled the applicant that the reason for the original la
conditions Was because the application was then incomplete, as It in now.
The issue of phasing should be addressed. The landscape plan lacks specific
information, and the fence issle, and tree loss is not addressed. Thu
question of the Private garden area is an unknown. Street trees and
screening should be specified. The new fence could be an improvement if the
landscaping was furnished.
410 Mr. Galante noted that the utilities will be placed underground, qo the
Problem of street trees growing into power poles is not a factor. Ms.• Petrie
asked that the request be tabled until all the items discussed tonight can be
addressed specifically.
Mr. Galante suggested this could be presented at the next meeting on
December 7, 1961•
Mn. Henick moved to table the request until the December 7, 19e1 meeting.
Mr. Piliod asked for clarification as to whether Ms. Henick meant to
indicate that the applicant ctaatt move forward on further work on his project
until the Board has been satisfied all the issues have been addressed. Ma.
Henick included that stipulation in her motion. The motion was seconded and
passed unanimously.
Mr. 'Bonney advised the applicant to contact staff, and work elosanly with them,
in preparing material for the next meeting to make, sure all .issued have been
addressed, so there will be no further delays. The Board cannot consider
plans that are not complete, and in accordance with. the ordinances of this
City. Mr. Galante suggested the applicant obtain a copy of the now
development ordinances, and specifically refer to page 20 for guidance.
DEVELORMI NT REVIEW BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1981 PAGL 7
DR 40-79 (Mercantile Village) -- To consider a request by Rowland Timmerman
to allow extensive modification to the previously approved plan for the
two-story, 14,960 sq. ft. Building "E". The modifications call for two
one-story buildings, totaling only 11,988 sq. ft. to be constructed on the
north side of Mercantile Drive (Tax Maps 2 li~ 80ie and 2 114 880).
r
Mr. Galante presented the staff report, explaining that staff believer that
one lane of the three-lane drive-through for the hank should be eliminated cto
more landscaping can be added. There is no berm in the area in question
The stream shown on the site Plan is a part of the drainage system. The (;ity
has not yet received drawings and calculations for the stream corridor
improvements, nor an easement in Order to take over maintenance of the
channel. Mr. Galante asked that this be added As a condition of approval.
Mr. Eslick wondered if the delve-through could se placed in a betk;el, I
location. Ms. tlenick was concerned that additional landscaping as csugge steel
by staff might pose A problem from a security standpoint. Mr. Galanto
responded that staff feels the additional, landscaping can be added without
hindering surveillance.
Mr. Eslick suggested "flip-flopping" the drive-through location.
Ron Timmerman, 2351,Palisades Crest Drive, wan agreeable tO w.he staff report
and conditions. The landscaping can be doubled at the building entrances.
The only problem the applicant has with the staff report in condition 43
Iregarding cutting back on the drive-through lanes from three to two. This i.ct
an independent bank, so they expect more volumes than if it were a branch,
The addition of the fifth condition regarding the stream corridor and
easement is no problem, and will be forthcoming, even Without being attached
to this request.
The elevations o$ the two buildings will be conSistent, With the others in the
Center. Mr. Eslick asked if the 3-foot overhangs on the back Of the building
were sufficient. Mr. Timmerman suggested window baya could be added on that
side of the buildings to break up the long straight liner.
Mr. Bates asked if the bank could be located in the other building, which
would allow the drive-through to cause less interference to cars in the
parking lot, as the access could be on Mercantile Drive. Mr. Tirnrnerman
explained that the bank prefers the front corner. $ignage will ho consistent
with the rest of the project.. The opening between the bellOthr;a is
approximately 30 feet.
Rues Leach, architect, reviewed the placement of the exits, and that this is
the location approved bY the Public Works Department. de agreed the
entrances between the openings in the two buildings coin d be "fanned eut°
Ma. Petrie moved for approval of the development with staff conditionts
applying, and the additional condition that the stream corridor' improvement
drawings and calculations, and the necessary easement for the drainage area,
DEVELOPMENT REVIECW BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1981 PAGE 8
411 be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The landscaping should
be to the satisfaction, of Staff, but Without deleting the 3-lianrl
drive-through. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
GENERAL PLANNING - None.
OTHER BUSINESS - None;
FINDINGS
DR 5-61 (Texaco Station) - Findings were approved.
CITY COUNCIL, ACTIONS None.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 2, 1901 !MEETING
Mr. Bates noted the folic/wing corrections:
Page 2, paragraph 3, should read "100A-year-flood level" (not
100-foot-flood level) .
Page 3, paragraph 7, states Mr. Bagel clarified that this project :will be
60 feet from the street, but that statement is incorrect, an there will
Ami be a garage located within that 60-foot distance, and only the apartment
will be 60 feet from the street.
Page 4, paragraph 4, line 3, the statment tie would like wood siding on
the building" should be changed to read "He would prefer wood siding on
the building".
Ms. Petrie asked that the spelling of the word "applying" be corrected on
Page 4, paragraph 4, line 2.
With the corrections noted, the minutes were approved, with all Board members
voting for approval with the exception of Ms. (ienick, who abstained.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:59 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beverly E. Coghill
Secretary
0041>?
\1 C
IOr
•7
•
•
•
Ct
{
z ni
.. _,i*t�eJe 6"s:n�......�,��..�....,,...a -,rm.....d,..,.ae.iu.A,a .a.au...iM�.ds114ta..Lc i.i.et,7i .`f.#e _ ..�,�•��"ffi�..3 . d. r` ;i 'i• s. _ _..
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1981 PAGE 1
The Development. Revie,a Board meeting of December 7, 1981 was called to order
at 7:32 p.m. by Chairman Robert Bonney. Development Review Board members
present were: Shirley Petrie, Lang Bates, Robert Bonney, Richard Eslick and
Frank Clarke. Bede Nishimura and Joan Henick were absent. Staff members
present Were: Robert Galante, City Planner; Lori Mastrantonio-Meuser, City
Planner; Mark Pilliod, Deputy City Attorney; and Beverly Coghill, Secretary. _
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF 'NOVEMBER 16, 1981
Approval of the minutes of the November 16, 1981 meeting was delayed until
after public hearings, at which time the minutes were approved unanimously,
without corrections.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATION None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DR 42-77 (G. T. McDermott and Frazier Realty Inc.) -- To "consider a request by
G. T. McDermott. and Frazier Realty Inc. for modifications to previously
approved plans and conditions to allow the construction of a new fence, to
revise the tree cutting application, and to revise the development schedule,
A revised landscape plan is proposed for the site located at 350 Furnace
Street (Tax Lot 2200 of Tax Map 2 lE TOAD) . (This request was tabled at. the
aik November 16, 1981 hearing and set over until the December 7, 1981 hearing. )
Mr. Galante presented the staff report. The applicant has presented the
construction schedule (Exhibit LL), the landscape plan (Exhibit CC-1 and
CC-2), the irrigation plan (Exhibit CC-3) , and the arborist report (Exhibit.
KK-1) . Mr. Galante explained that Building C will be built within six to
eight months after issuance of building permits, and Buildings A, B and D are
scheduled for completion within 12 to 18 months after completion of C. The
schedule is acceptable to staff.
Mr. Galante noted that the plan for Building A shows that the large deodar
cedar will be removed, as the arborist says that Cuttinginto the roots will
y
cause the loss of the tree. The alternative would be to change the location
of the building. They propose a concrete stair unit Which would be only about
3 feet from the fence (Building A) . Firethorn will screen the stairway to
some degree. Staff believes that a plan to dead-end the fence that goes
around the property, so they don't have to pass within three feet of the
stair, would work. The railing and stairs combined Will have approximately a
9-foot visual impact. A similar problem exists on the east side, however, a
landing breaks the run of stairs. Those stairs are immediately adjacent to
the property Line. They should dead-end the fence and face the stairs with
brick. Along Wilbur they show a curbline concrete walkway, and the City wants
a property-line walkway. In either case, the sidewalk could be of concrete.
It would be better if this was a property-line walkway configuration. There
are 3 to 4 stairs within the public right-of-way.
1110 The grading plan calls out only spot elevations. It is difficult to review,
'n was done to save and a
and not drawn. to City standards. The grading trees,
lot of the trees are not there any more. The entire building front the front
is now 5-6 feet higher in appearance than the original plan, although it still
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1981 PAGE 2
4110 meets the Design District height requirements. Curbline sidewalks would allow
a hedge or plantings along the fence line, and allow for street trees. Trees
to be cut are not illustrated °'n plans.
Mr. Bates asked what staff wanted to do about the deader cedar. Mr. Galante
responded that the tree could not be saved if the building design is
retained. A neW design will have to be submitted, if saving the tree is 4
condition of approval. The landscape plans meet City standards, but there are
some problems in the grading plan. Mr. Galante suggested a more complete
grading plan, and a revision of the landscape plan regarding the stairways and
sidewalks.
Mr. Bonney asked what the applicant would have to conlete when he started
with Building C. Mr. Galante stated the parking areas will be completed in
the first phase. A discussion on the grading plan followed.
Walter Durham, Jr. , applicant, pointed out that page one of the applicant's
petition was missing, and he passed that page to the Board. He emphasized
that the first phase, Building C, was to be used as a guideline for the
balance of the project. The curbline sidewalk is desired by the applicant.
After Building C is finished, the applicant would like to work with staff on
the remaining three buildings. During the interim for phase two, the property
would be kept in a neat order, and the parking lot is included in the first
phase. There will be some preliminary storage of materials, and the alley
• will be paved. With the completion of phase one, all material would be
removed from the site, and the site will be cleaned up. Mr. Durham accepted
the suggestion for a brick facade on the stairways.
Gladstone McDermott, applican explained that the sidewalk configuration on
Wilbur came about due to the bank, and attempting to avoid car doers opening
into that bank. He declared that the deodar is really a sitka spruce and
should come down because it is a "dirty* tree. The arborist has stated that
the other trees are too close together, and should be removed. He reported
that the site would remain fenced until the buildings are completed. Mr.
McDermott suggested the site could be leveled out and let the grass grow until
the second phase is started. He hopes there is no delay in the second phase.
Walter Durham would propose to leave Wilbur Street "as is" until construction
is completed, but would keep the landscaping tidy. He would like to come back
to staff regarding elevations when they are developed. He would trim the
grass and keep the original fence, but would develop the sidewalk on Wilbur.
Mr. 'McDermott asked if the parking bays were necesary. Mr. Galante responded
that they were.
Cheryl Cone( landscape designer, assured the Board that the landscape plan and
the irrigation plan will be coordinated. She pointed out that there will be
underground utilities in the area. Her client is concerned about vandalism,
and for that reason would like to place the trees within the fence rather than
on the street. They feel this will give the same effect. Inside the property
ill line there will be flowering cherries. She believed the fence on Wilbur is a
good landscape feature in itself. On Building C, where it projects out, the
1
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1981 PAGE 3
windows will be low, and a 42-inch hedge would be very enclosing. An open
effect is desired. On Wilbur, neat Building A, there will be flowering
dogwood.
Thomas Rodriguez, 1427 SE Taylor, Portland, owns Tax Lots 4000, 4100, 4200 and
4300, and Tax Lot 2900 is owned by his brother. He wishes to go on record to
state that he supports Mr. McDermott's project.
Opposition
Lee Raish, 412_ Furnace Street/, said that at previous meetings it was an agreed
trade-off that the townhouses would be accepted by the neighbors if the trees
and fencing remained around the periphery. She resents the continual changes,
and the discrepancies in the plans. She pointed out that Ms. Leche had stated
that the original old building was too unstable to remain on the site, but; she
(Ms. Leche) had that building moved onto her property, and was now renting it
out.
The project plans are not complete, nor well drawn. The trees should have
been saved, and the architect should have designed around them. They are not
complying with the laws and codes of the City.
Nancy Rochette, 145 Wilbur, asked for clarification on the area between the
street and the fence. Mr. Galante described the suggested plan. Ms. Rochette
expressed her frustration on the continual changes made on the project, and
4 the lack of complete plans for elevations and landscaping for public review,
She did not like the 5-foot high steps now planned, and appealed to the Board
to retain the original buffer, as required in the first presentation. She
declared that she has lost confidence in the Board and staff due to their
inconsistency in upholding the conditions applied to the project. Mr. Bonney
agreed that the Board was unhappy with the way the development has gone.
Mr. Bates noted that there was not a plan, that he could see, for the existing
trees to be cut. Mr. Galante maintained that this could be brought in later
when the tree cutting permit is issued. Mr. Bates summarized, that there were
three items to be resolved: (1) the fence, (2) tree cutting, and (3) the
revised development and phasing of the project.
Mr. Galante reminded the Board that in the original, proposal, no street trees
were mentioned, but trees on the site were to be saved, Specifically, the
large deodar was to be saved. He felt that placing some of the trees behind
the fence, as planned by the landscape architect, might be acceptable.
Building A needs to be buffered from the residential area. The Wilbur Street
side is the important one for street trees. The sidewalk will be 5 feet wide.
Mr. Bates felt that Building A should be lowered, and the steps should be
limited. If this is not possible, then additional planting and buffering
should be included. Because of the inconsistency of the plans all the way
through this development, Mr. Bates preferred to review Building G, and
consider the other phase when it is properly designed, and complete plans can
be reviewed.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1981 PAGE 4
Mr. 'Bonney clarified that in the first phase the sidewalk and street tree
issues must be resolved.
Mr. Bates pointed out that if elevations are changed on any of the buildings,
it could effect the grade of the parking lot, also. He supported staff's
recommendations for a brick facade on all vertical concrete surfaces.
Mr. Eslick suggested that where the fence comes into conjunction with the
stairs a brick pilaster and a wrought iron hand rail could be installed.
Mr. Bates moved for approval of the request with all applicable conditions of
the previous approval applying, with the modification of certain conditions as
outlined below:
1. #10, that a landscape architect or arborisl be retained to show the
methods of treatment of existing vegetation to staff's satisfaction.
2. That Building C only be considered in this approval, with the
condition that all other buildings on site be brought' back for review
by the Board for future phase submittals.
3. The width of sidewalk along Wilbur Street be 5 feet, and it will be
adjacent to the curb.
411 4. The plans and elevations of buildings be revised to be consistent.
5. That Building A be lowered in relation to the adjacent grades, and
effort be made to eliminate stairs from sidewalks to those buildings.
6. That a grading plan be submitted to.City standards, and to the
satisfaction of staff.
7. That a phasing plan and description be submitted to the satisfaction
of staff.
8. Retaining walls or vertical concrete surfaces be faced with brick.
9. Plans be submitted for trees to be removed, and that the tree cutting
application be brought before the Board. This plan should also show
trees that will remain.
10. Along Wilbur, in the planting area, additional street trees and
screening be shown, and an irrigation plan, if necessary, be
submitted.
11. The construction schedule as submitted for phase one is acceptable.
12. Phase 2 should be submitted within eighteen months after completion
of phase one.
110 13. The remainder of the site that is not constructed in phase one, be
cleaned and maintained in an orderly manner, and no cutting or
unsightly storing of building material will be allowed.
Amk DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1981 PAGE 5
14. All landscape plans should be presented for the phasing. The extra
planting and street trees would only be made as the outer buildings on the
site are developed. The old fence and screening will remain until further
phasing. Vegetation along Wilbur will not be removed during construction
of Unit C.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
There was a recess from 9:00 p.m. until 9:15 p.m.
SIGN APPROVALS None.
VAR 26-81 (Russell M. Cook) - A request for approval of a 'variance to reduce
the required 20-foot front yard setback to 12 feet. The site is located at
2605 South Shore Boulevard. The site contains an existing single-family
residence (Tax Lot 1300, Tax Map 2 1E 8DD) ,
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser presented the staff report.
Mr. Bates suggested an automatic garage door-opener be required.
Russell Cook, 2605 South Shore Avenue, stated that if South Shore is widened
it will not intrude on his property. He has a survey dating from some years
ip ago, and he does plan to install an automatic door opener.
Al Stringham, McMinnville, pointed out, that the carport and driveway have been
in existence for 20 years, and to ask Mr. Cook for a survey when he already
has his property properly staked, seems redundant. Mr. Bonney maintained that
the City has to know how the building is situated within the right-of-way.
Grades for the driveway need to be recorded.
Ms. Petrie moved for approval with the staff recommendations and conditions
applying, and the additional condition requiring an automatic garage door
opener. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
SD 37-81, SD 38-81 and VAR 29-81, Otak and Associates, applicant, Carolyn and
Daniel Angelelo and: Kathleen MacNaughton, owners, a request for approval of
two minor partitions. Ms. MacNaughton (Tax Lot 6100) proposes to partition
her lot into three lots. Mr. and Mrs. Angelelo (Tax Lot 6000) propose to
divide their lot into two lots. In addition, the applicants are requesting
approval of a lot width variance at the front building line (from 80 feet to
74 feet) and the creation of three lots without road frontage at 3151 and 3155
SW Douglas Circle. A shared 25-foot wide easement will provide access to all
five parcels. (Tax Lots 6000 and 6100, Tax Map 2 1B BAC)
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser presented the staff report, and a letter in opposition
from Richard Hutchins, 16137 Reece Road (Exhibit G) . Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser
noted that the water pressure has been tested, and it is 56 pounds (40 pounds
• maximum is considered acceptable). The plan conforms with the LCDC goals.
Ms. Petrie asked if each lot contained the required 10,000 sq. ft., excluding
the easement property. The reply was affirmative. Ms. Mastrantonio-•Meuser
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1981 PAGE 6
presented the plot plans and a map showing the trees. She noted that the Fire
Department and the garbage collectors could service the site with no problems.
Ms. Petrie asked what lot Would have the most drainage problems. Ms.
Mastrantonio-Meuser clarified that there were no drainage problems, but there
is no storm drain along Douglas Circle, and that is why the City is asking for
storm drains at this time. The site is relatively flat
Mr. Bates asked for clarification on the difference between a subdivision and
a minor partition, since this would be developing five loth. It was clarified
that the lots were in separate ownership and that a street would not be
created
Ralph Tehran/ Otak, felt the question of whether this is a minor partition or
a subdivision had been resolved, since both parties would be able to develop
their properties at different times with no problems. dust because they are
developing at the same time, and attempting to save more trees in their plan
for a shared easement, some of the neighbors have been unjustly critical.
ORS 92.160 states that 4 or more lots in a calendar year developed under
single ownership is a subdivision. The water pressure was tested at 24 pounds
by the applicant, but this area was a priority area for improvements of the
Water system. The applicants agree with the conditions of approval.
Ask The turn-around area was discussed, and Mr. Eslick was concerned that some of
MP the landscaping might be harmed there. Mr. Tehran suggested that problem be
worked out to the satisfaction of staff. Only trees in the way of the
easement are planned for removal from the Site. Drainage b ,2rywells for the
entire site Will be provided.
Opposition
Valerie French, 3474 Lanewood, Lot 6200, stated that her privacy will be
destroyed, and she will no longer be able to enjoy family picnics on her
property. She appealed to the Board to make a condition that the applicant
furnish a privacy fence. She was also concerned about the added traffic. She
said there are no signs on Douglas Circle or Lanewood indicating the speed
zone. She has tried to get signs erected that would slow the traffic down,
but has had no cooperation in her efforts from the City.
Ms. Petrie asked if Ms. French was asking for a 230-foot-long-fence. She
replied that a fence from 60 feet to 100 feet would suffice.
dames Madley, 3136 Douglas Circle, Lot 3600, supports the arguments against
the project as stated in Mr. Hutchins' letter (Exhibit G) . He specifically
objects to the additional traffic. He moved into the neighborhood because of
the large lots and privacy, and is 100% against the project.
Rebuttal
Catherine MacWaughton, 3151 Douglas Circlet. declared that her property is
surrounded by natural shrubs that she intends to leave in place for buffering,
• DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1981 PAGE 7
Mr. 'Tehran reported that the trees and brush on the corner of Lanewood are in
the right-of-Way, and, if they are removed, the hazard could be diminished.
Jerry Nierengarten, 15561 Twin Fir, feels that simply removing the shrubbery
in the right-of-way will not lessen the traffic hazard enough, and suggested a
sign be erected.
Mr. Pilliod clarified that the Board can ask the Traffic Control Board to
consider some signage for the public street, but they can't make it a
requirement for the project. As a condition of approval, the Traffic Control
Board can be asked to approve any private sign to make this a safe development.
Mr. Clarke felt that the applicant should not have to bear the cost for safety
signs. Mr. Bates argued that since their project will be adding to the
traffic, they should be required to make it as safe as possible.
Ms. Petrie contended that the applicant should not have to build a privacy
fence. Mr. Bonney concurred, stating that this is residential abutting
residential, and is not a multiple-unit development.
Ms. Petrie moved for approval of the request to partition, and the variance,
with staff conditions applying, changing #2 to include that landscape plans
for the setback (5' - 6' ) be submitted to the satisfaction of staff; #8,
applicant shall submit a drainage plan for the entire site to staff
satisfaction; #12, the tree cutting Will be to staff's satisfaction; #13, that
the. Traffic Control Board approve signage and/or trimming shrubbery, or adding
striping or any other safety features proposed for the streets.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
SD 35-81 and VAR 28-81, a request by F. Byron Kibbey, applicant, and Susan
Kibbey, owners, for approval of a minor partition to create two lots from one
existing partially-developed lot. In addition, the applicant is requesting
approval of a variance from the 25-foot wide road frontage requirement to 20
feet, approval to allow the creation of one lot without road frontage, and
approval to reduce the 25-foot rear yard requirement to 21.5 feet. A shared
20-foot wide easement will provide access to both lots. The site is located
at 1560 SW Twin Fir Road (Tax Lot 2900, Tax Map 2 lE 8AC) .
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser presented the staff report, and read that part of Mr.
Hutchins letter (Exhibit G) in opposition to the partition. It was clarified
that the sideyard setback would be 8 feet (Exhibit C) .
Mr. Bates asked why this project was asking for a 20-foot easement and not 25
feet, as in the previous request. Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser responded that this
was due to the layout of the property (Exhibit D). The two paved parking
spaces being required (Condition #10) are to eliminate additional parking on
Twin Fir. The lots will be less than 10,000 square feet if the easement and
the dedication are subtracted from the gross acreage.
411 Byron Kibbey, applicant, stated that some of the concerns of the neighbors,
especially conditions #1, #4, and #7, and the loss of privacy to the neighbor
immediately to the south has led him to believe that the project should be
II
DEVELOPMENT REVIE4W BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1981 PAGE 8
reconsidered. If the easement was paved, there would be a loss of shrubs and
trees, Condition #4 requires the right:-of--way to be increased by 10 feet, and
the road will be widened and traffic will increase. Condition #t, mentions a
potential development of a rear access to the site. Previously, there has
been mention of a possibility of a cul-de-sac access from Douglas Circle from
the north, and this is not a popular idea.
Mr. Bates asked how the applicant would resolve these concerns.
Mr. Kibbey responded that he has only had a week to consider these things, but
they are in agrement that they would rather not see the right-of-Way widened
from 40 feet to 60 feet.
e to streetandit .
pointedout that this is a collector street requires Galante a
Mr,y. ... ... C]. ...
wider right-of-way. This street is projected to have five times the amount of
traffic that it carries now by the year 2000, and that is the reason for the
condition.
Opposition
Sylvia Keller _ 15655 Twin Fir, Tax Lot 2700, would like the request postponed
because the Review' printed an incorrect address. public notices were not
received until December 3, and City staff had said they were mailed out on
November 20. The postmark on these notices was December 2. If the item is
Amik not set over for a later hearing the neighbors plan to appeal. Ms. Keller
lep objected to the lack of a registered survey of the property. She claims that
with a 20-foot paved easement, the setback will be only 2 feet 8 inches.
There are two large fir trees marked for cutting, and this will remove an
important buffer. The two lots share a dense hedge, and a lot of that hedge
will be ruined in the development. She objects to losing privacy, and the
added traffic.
Mr. Galante noted that there is an affi
davit in the file indicating that
public notice was mailed on November 20, 1981 There is no explanation for
the delay in reaching the neighbors.
Ms. Petrie moved to set the hearing over until December 21, 1981. Mr. Bates
the concernse as discussed in tonight's g
asked that meeting be addressed before
the next hearing.
Mr. Eslick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
SD 33-81, SD 34-81 and VAR 27-81, a request by Frank D. Malone and Daniel
Casey for approval of two minor partitions. Mr. Malone (Tax Lot 400) proposes
to divide his lot into two lots. Mr. Casey (Tax Lot 500) proposes to divide
his lot into two lots. In addition, the applicants are requesting approval of
a variance to allow the creation of two lots without road frontage. The site
is located at 3500 and 3520 SW Upper Drive. A shared 25-foot wide easement
will provide access to all four lots (Tax Lots 400 and 500, Tax Map 2 18 8CD).
4111 Ms Mastrantonio-Meurer presented the staff report, noting that the new
ordinance requires a tree-cutting permit for trees over 8 inches, and a
tree-cutting permit must be obtained if necessary.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1981 PAGE 9
Mr. Galante read the new Development Standards, 15.005, Page 49, stating that
on residential land the area for street right-of-Wall (public or private) must
be deducted from the acreage. He suggested this request be tabled until the
question on the area is resolved.
Mr. Pilliod noted that this might require another, variance, which will have to 1
be advertised. It will have to be determined whether this is a street or a
driveway,. This decision could impact other hearings, as well,
Mr. Bates moved to table the request until the next available hearing. The
motion was seconded and, passed' unanimously.
Glen. Chlcotes 3480 Upper Drive, tated askedthat for bye 15 the~City isfoOt dWKan�al�nd feels
requirement for right-of-way being , /.
the City should wait until that land is needed, and then purchase it from the
landowners at that time
Ms. Petrie reported that she had apacket r+ received �
pofrom 'the pity with $1,12 in
postage on it, and it only required 37g. She asked that the procedures for
weighing material to be mailed be, checked.
4111 FINDINGS
VAR 25-81 and DR 15-81 were approved.
ADJOURNMENT
There being n0 further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, )
J) r
Ii cri.
Beverly E. Chill
Secretary
0080P,
it
tl
ttt
•
•
ttt
•
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MELTING DECEMBER 21, 1981 Page One
4111 The Development Review Board meeting of December 21, 1981 was called to order
at 7:34 p.m. by Chairman Robert Bonney. Development Review Board members
present were: Shirley Petrie, Robert Bonney, Richard Eslick and Frank
Clarke. Bede Nishimura, Lang Bates and Joan Renick were absent. Staff
members present were: Robert Galante, City Planner; Mark Pillion, Deputy City
Attorney; Lori Mastrantonio-Meuser, City Planner; Alex Arseniev, Assistant
City Engineer; and Beverly Coghill, Secretary.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 1981
The minutes of the December 7, 1981 Development Review Board meeting were
approved unanimously, 'without corrections.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS -- None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SD, 35-81 and VAR 28-81 (Byron Kibbeyj had been withdrawn from the agenda.
DR 13-80 (European American Management Corporation, Condominiums), a request
for approval of modifications to allow a change in siding application,
building setbacks, construction schedule, and in the landscape plan for a
57-unit condominium project located at the intersection of Botticelli and
Melrose Street in Mountain Park (Tax Lot 8400 of Tax Map 2 1E 5BC, Supp. 1).
41, Mr. Galante presented the staff report, indicating that adequate plans had not
been presented as yet. He reviewed past action on the development. He
reported that since the approval was granted, it has been noted that
construction is closer to the property line than the plans approved, and
construction no longer coincides with the plans approved by the Board. The
plans approved are not consistent with construction drawings. Some trees
shown on the plan have been cut or lost to storm damage,
Mr. Galante presented photos of the site to show what has been done on the
project (Exhibit A-1). The setback from the rear property line of the
development is in question, and the siding was approved to be attached
vertically, but it has been done horizontally. There is an area in the center
of the project that was to remain in a natural state and an arborist was to
have been retained to assure protection of the vegetation. This has not been
done. The developer has dumped extra earth in this area. The retaining wall
was placed to allow rear exit. The developer has been asked to stop work On
the site, and a new development schedule is required. Some of the common area
vegetation has also been destroyed. The Mountain Park Homeowners Association
will restore this area and be reimbursed by the builder. However, that
association is concerned 'that the developer will not pay for this, unless the
Board conditions development to assure the reimbursement. The plans the i
Building Department have on file show a retaining wall, but this is not
consistent with the plans approved by the Board.
The applicant was not in attendance, and there were no proponents. A
41p'1 discussion on whether to delay the public hearing until the applicant came
forth with the proper plans, followed.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1981 Page Two
411 Opposition
Jack Traschel, 30 Del Prado, owns the home directly to the north of the
development, and he is concerned about the setbacks and the landscape plan.
The work has not been done in accordance with the Development Review Board's
approval. The buildings look like ",army barracks". The developer has cleared
the portion of the green belt of vegetation, and though he has agreed to
restore it the neighbors are uncertain that this will be done unless the
Board makes it a requirement. Mr. Traschel presented a letter in opposition
signed by a number of neighbors (Exhibit B-i). Mr. Traschel reviewed the
process the neighbors had gone through to obtain an additional 50 feet of
property in order to have a greater buffer.
Ed Burke& 28 Del Prado, wished to "echo" the preceding corrtnents. At the same
time the developer dumped earth in the green belt, he also dumped on some of
the neighbors' property. The developer moved this material, but in doing so
damaged trees, roots, etc. He appealed for some kind of bonding so some
decent screening can be assured.
Mr. Traschel reported that $2400 has been allowed by the applicant for
.restoration, but feels this is not enough to do the job.
Mr. Pilliod advised that the Board could not be involved in fixing the cost
of damages, and the condition should be for restoration to the satisfaction of
• staff.
The Board concurred that the development schedule and the plan presented to
the Mt. Park Homeowners Association should be presented at the public hearing
before the Board. The plans should be submitted for the entire site along
with landscape plans. Discussion on DR 13-80 was tabled until further notice.
SIGN APPROVA S - None.
VAR 31-81 ()Ars. William Donnelly), a request by Mrs. William Donnelly for
approval o{' a variance to reduce the required 20-foot side yard setback to 16
feet. The/applicant is seeking approval to the variance which would allow the
construction of a 150-square-foot addition to the existing residence. The
site is 16cated at 980 Lund Street (Tax Lot 2900, Tax Map 2' 15 10DA).
Ms. Mastruntonio-Meuser presented the staff report, clarifying that the
existing building is encroaching on the setback, but the proposed addition
will not.
Mrs..,Donnelly, 980 Lund, explained her plans, and presented a letter of
approval from der neighbors (Exhibit D). The original building was built in
1956, she stated.
At this point Ms. Mastrentonio-Meuser <declared that staff had not been aware.
that the building was'built before the 1961 zoning ordinance went into effect,
4. and that it was not legally necessary for Mrs. Donnelly to go through the
variance process due to that information. The fee should be refunded to the
41, `�
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1081 Page Three
applicant, if the facts bear out her statement.
Ms. Petrie moved to return the variance fee to the applicant, stating that a
variance is not necessary if the home was constructed prior to 1961. The
motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
VAR 32-81 (Dan and Roni Bloch), a request by Dan and Roni Bloch for approval
of a variance to reduce the required 20-foot front yard setback to 12 feet.
The applicant is seeking approval of the variance which Would allow the
enclosure of the existing carport. The site is located at 17753 Overlook
Circle (Tax Lot 8200 of Tax Map 2 1E 17AD) ,
Ms. Mastrantonio-Meuser presented the staff report.
Mr. Eslick suggested the applicant install an automatic garage door opener for
added safety.
The applicant was not in attendance.
Fred Newcomer, Tax Lot 7800, supported the variance.
opposition None.
Ms. Petrie moved for approval with staff conditions applying. Mr► Clarke
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
DR 14-81 (Shelter Development Co. -- Elderly Housing), a request by Shelter
Development Company for modification of the preliminary approval previously
granted for a two-story 30-unit elderly-housing project and final approval of
the modification to a three:-story 30-unit structure located at the rear of
three lots on the south side of Sunset Drive between Reese and Bryant Roads
(Tax Lots 6100, 6200 and 100 of Tax Map 2 1E 8CB).
Mr. Galante presented the staff report, explaining past actions. Mr. Galante
explained the applicants compliance with conditions as follows:
1. They have submitted modified proposals.
2, The landscape plan is only conceptual, and this should not be
approved tonight.
3. A color board has been submitted, showing a darker roof.
4 The sign design has not been submitted, and this should be done at
the final approval hearing.
5. Garbage storage and screening has been shown.
6. Staff is asking that the pathway be directed toward Reese Road to
reach the bus stop.
7. They have not signed a petition and nonrenx:onstrance agreement:.
8. They have not submitted a tree-cutting plan, however, trees to be cut
are marked on the site plan,
1111 A discussion on the pathway followed.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1981 Page Four
Mr. Eslick pointed out that preliminary approval had been for a 2-story
structure, and asked if this would require a height Variance. Mr. Galante
read the Conditional Use ordinance, stating that the Board can grant a height
greater than the zone requirement.
Mike Bartos, Shelter Properties, submitted, photos of the adjoining properties.
Charles Morgan, Everett, Washington, architect, contended that the height of
the 6uilding was 36 feet to the top of the roof line. An angle projected from
the property line would be the same if it were two story because the building
has been moved back. He would prefer to place the Walkway around the
vehicular traffic on the property, and on to Reese. The lighting will be ,low
intensity. The survey has been completed, and he submitted the document. The
applicant wants to save as Many trees as possible, and the three-story
building helped to do this. He described the various stains to be used on the
building. Mr. Galante stated that staff did not agree that the contrast of
the colors on the buildings was compatible with neighborhood residences, and
pointed out that this project had been started through the city process for
approval before the new development ordinances were in effect, which does not
allow the Board to review color. He advocated that the panels not be so
contrasting, and that light color soffits be used. Mr. Bonney asked the
applicant why they had decided on a three-story building. The response by the
applicant was that the rents needed to finance the project cannot be obtained
unless the building has an elevator. An elevator will not be approved by the
State in a two-story building. This is a HUD requirement for Federal money.
John Arencls, Everett, Washington, reiterated the requirement of an elevator by
HUD in order to charge maximum rents.
Charles Morgan explained the transformers, garbage collection site, the
heating system, and the hope to place the mail boxes in the lobby of the
building.
Opposition
Richard Hutchins, 16137 Reese, Chairman of the Lake Grove Neighborhood
Association,, reviewed past actions, and stressed that the Association wants to
retain the two-story building. He stated the only reason for modification and
change on the project is for profit. The staff report of the Planning
Commission stated in the conditions that the building` would harmonize and
should not be out of character with the existing neighborhood. The developer
is trying to tie it to the commercial zone, but it is in a residential zone.
Mr. Hutchins stated that past actions by the Development Review Board and the
City Council support the two-story concept, and not a three-story. Be felt as
many trees could be saved by shifting the location of the two-story, as in the
three-story building, as 'proposed. He does not feel accurate figures were
submitted to Council.
Mr. Bonney asked Mr. Hutchins to present his opposition in writing for the
file.
Mr. Bonney asked for clarification on Council's approval of a two- or
three-story building.
• DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1981 Page Five
Mr. Galante noted that the record stated that if a three-story building is
constructed, then second exits should be provided. That is the only reference
to a three-story unit. The record does not clearly indicate that the height
was restricted.
Dave Jeffries, 4184 Sunset, Tax Lot 7400, referring to the pathway to the bus
stop, stated this should go through the commercial area. If a sidewalk is
placed in front of the,property, the drainage Will be impacted. A bus stop is
located at the junction,of Reese and Upper Drive, and there is another one
near the fish market. He is opposed to the three-story building, and feels it
will be an eye-sore. At the front of the site there is a laurel hedge, and he
Would like that maintained, during construction as a buffer.
Steve Danshok, 16865 Greenbriar, owns the Professional. Center Building, which
is 33 feet from the street and is a two-story structure with a basement.
Mary Soderberg, 4263 Sunset, asked if the Comprehensive Plan restricts
buildings of more than two stories in an established neighborhood.
Mr. Galante read the passage on Page 58 of the Plan, stating that buildings
cannot exceed two stories in an existing neighborhood. He explained that
since this project was started before the City was designated entirely
"established", the Board could consider this under the existing designations.
oil Ms. Soderberg declared that the Council had said that this is an "existing"
neighborhood, and therefore the three-story building would not fit in with the
character of the neighborhood.
Alex Malagom, 16140 Reese, stressed that the three-story building would not
fit into the neighborhood, and the original approval had been for a structure
only 26 feet in height.
John Palo, 4181 Sunset, opposed the plan, and urged the Board to put the
pathway through the commercial area, where contact to the stores, etc., would
be easier.
Rebuttal
William Headlee, 1874 Glenmorrie maintained that the figures he had presented
were put together by the State Housing Authority, and they were based on data
to t m but hehad nothingto do with the final fiures. HUD
he had sent he , u
made the requirements for: an elevator to obtain the rents this project needs
tO survive. He illustrated that the church across the street. is much taller
than the building he proposes.
Mr. Bartos suggested that with the help of the City, Tri-Met might locate a
bus stop at the elderly housing site.
Mr. Hutchins asked if the figures Mr. Headlee submitted for rents had been
4111 submitted to Council.
Mr. Headlee assured him these figures had been passed on to Council. ,.,Mra.
Galante reviewed the Findings of the City Council on this pro jectt.,
j w:
n E
DEVELOPMENT,REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 21,, 1981 Page Six
41/ A discussion followed on possible redesign of the building to lower it and
still retain the three-story configuration as required by HUD.
Mr. Headlee stressed the project should be approved as soon as possible, in
order to obtain the government money needed. The interest, rates have gone
from 7.2% to 10.2% already,
Ms. Petrie moved for preliminary approval of DR 14-81 with conditions N ,
through #6 applying, eliminating #7, and adding to #1 that City Council
actions should be clarified, and if it is found that the City Council only
approved two stories, then approval by the Development Review Board Would be
cancelled. Mr. slick asked to add to the motion that control of run-off of
hard surface areas be addressed; that the existing hedge is to be left in
place and maintained during construction; that the siding should be of a
lighter stain than the color board shows; that mail boxes Should be shown; and
that the landscape plan should be completed to City standards and brought back
for final review. Mr. Galante suggested a condition on the sidewalk (which
was accepted by the Board as a part of the motion) stating that this should be
reviewed more thoroughly and staff should come up with a recoMmendation for
the Board so that access is not completely eliminated, and this study should
cover commercial as well as the Sunset access. If there is a path through the
a commercial area, it should be shown on the plan. Mr. Arseniev commented that
the drainage should be to staff's satisfaction. Additional items attached to
the motion were that staff will provide clarification on the City Council's
intent at the next meeting and that elevations be drawn showing 'finished
grades. Mr. Clarke seconded the motion and it passed With all Board members
voting in favor with the exception of Mr. Bonney, who voted in opposition.
There Was a recess from 10:20 to 10:30 p.m.
DR 18-81 _(Thomas Rodrigues, Pizza Restaurant), a request by Thomas Rodrigues
for preliminary and final approval to allow the remodeling and expanding of
the existing A & W restaurant to a pizza restaurant located at 485 S. State
Street (Tax Lot 4100 of Tax Map 2 lE 10AD).
Mr. Galante presented the staff report and photos of the site, explaining that
the utility pole problem mentioned in; the report, was to be resolved by the
City and not the applicant.
Ms. Petrie asked for clarification on the request for alley Paving.
Mr. Galante stated that if the paving is not up to standard, the applicant
will have to improve it- along the length of his property line.
Thomas Rodrigues, 1427 SW Taylor, Portland, gave his family backgropnd and
business background. He reviewed his plans for the restaurant improvement,
emphasizing that it will be an asset and gathering place for the community,
and especially family-oriented.
Neil Thogerson, 0323 SW Flower, Portlan,,, t reviewed his process of remodelling
the A & W restaurant, and presented a slide show of the project.
,a
a
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1981 Page Seven
40 Don Barker, 2242 SE Madison, Portland, reviewed the landscape material to be
used, and the irrigation system proposed (hosebibs only) . Proper drainage
will be accomplished by laying down gravel and using high-grade soils in the
planters.
Mr. Galante indicated that an irrigation system is required.
Kathrine Gray, 2596 Palisades. Crest Drive, summarized the Comprehensive Plan
requirements, and stressed that this project will meet many needs of the
community. She appealed to the Board to reconsider the retaining wall, as she
feels it would be more dangerous than the present grade of the parking lot.
Opposition None.
In response to a question, Mr. Galante explained that staff did not feel the
chain link fence was compatible with a residential area, and a landscape
buffer should be provided. The fence is inside the property line by eight
feet.
Ms. Petrie specified that in this location, for this neighborhood, and for
this development, the fence as it is now, is acceptable. Mr. Eslick suggested
staining the fence slats to match the siding of the building. The sign was
discussed, with the Board concurring that the sign should be 12 feet high, and
the slope of the parking lot should be changed with a retaining wall installed
on State Street. The parking slots were discussed, with six of them being
ip designated primarily for employees. After 7:00 p.m., the applicant stated
customers could park in the adjacent service station lot.
Mr. Eslick moved for approval of the request, with staff recommendations 1
through 9 applying, with a change in condition #2 asking for irrigation along
State Street to be underground to staff satisfaction, and the addition of
condition #10, that the existing fence shall remain, but that the wood slats
be stained to match the siding of the building. Condition #5 regarding the
utility pole should be changed as outlined by Mr. Galante.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
The applicant stated that he could not afford the regrading of the parking lot
so would not go forward with the proposal.
GENERAL PLANNING - None.
OTHER BUSINESS
VAR 23-81 FINDINGS were approved.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
• Respectfully submitted,
ea
Beverly ECoghill D e'" -.'
Secretary
0111P
I
'
t ,
f
,tff M
ra
•
•
•
iN
}
•
IN
•
•
•
•
I.
It
51
f
rn
.. .r..a.`,9r,aY wi�uLL..FWHwa4.+'�r.�L:.`la.`....Lit�ik.,;`.rCltx relu.,�lilli=�a�.. lr_a •e1_..: Lu�i 5. '�xrti '' .,"�ltira'i'I- _ ;i `r- ;.,�' au4�ild'�y w
REGULAR MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD
1111
PL6NNING COMMISSION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
July through December 1981
PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS ATTENDANCE - SIX MONTHS
July through_December 1981,
(Total Of 11 meetings held)
Burton Goodrich 11
Michael Montgomery (Term ended July 1981) 0
Warren Oliver
Thomas L. Peters 9
Michael Taylor (Term ended July 19$1) 0
Darrell Wilburn (Term ended August 1981) 2
Susan Wl11 (Term ended July 1981 O
Adrianne Brockman
Larry Sokol 9
Ormond Bean 10
Larry Rosencrahtz (Term begins January 12, 1982)
Jeanne Robinette (Term begins January 12, 1982)
1 Elizabeth Ross (Term begins January 12, 1982)
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDANCE - SIX MONTHS
July through December 1981
Lang Bates 10
Robert Bonney, Jr. 9
Frank Clarke 7
Richard Es l i ck 10
Joan Henick 4
Bede Nishimura 8
Shirley Petrie 1O
milk cc Helen Bush ,
Pete Harvey
John Godsey
Pat Barnum
Bob Galante