Approved Minutes - 1984-01-01 Developement Review Board minutes 1984
January 4, 1984
January 16, 1984
February 6, 1984
February 22, 1984
March 5, 1984
March 19► 1984
April 2, 1984
April 16, , 1984
May 7 1984
May 21, 1984
June 4, 1984
June 18► 1984
July 2, 1984
July 16, 1984
August 1, 1984
August 6, 1984
August 20/ 1984
September 12, 1984
September 5, 1984
September 17, 1984,
October 1, 1984
October 15, 1984
November 5, 1984
November 19, 1984
December 3, 1984
December 17 1984
CITY OF LAk OSW:C
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 4, 1984
The Development Review Board meeting oil anuary 4, 1984 was called to
order by Chairman frank Clarke at 7:35 p.m. Board members present were
Chairman Clarke, Richard Hutchins, Katherine Ericsson, And Shirley Petrie,
Richard Cslick and Lynn Takeuchi were excused, and Anthony Wright was
absent. Staff present were Planning Director Sandra Young, City Planners
Bob Galante and Gary Miniszewski, City Attorney Jim Col,emcut, Deputy City
Attol:ney '1ark:. Pilli:od, and Secretary Kristi Hitchcock.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minutes was delayed until biter In the meeting,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Galante said he had a letter received from Robert and Jnnice Bruckner
which would be presented during the public hearing for PR 1,-83, Mark
Development,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
411 DR 20-83 A request by Trendsetter Properties, Inc, to chan:e the nama ol"
a private street in the newl a roved Taylor's. Crest Planned Development..
The street is presently identified as Shepard Purse Court, and the proposed
name is Taylor's Crest Lane.
No one spoke for nor against the application, and Chairman Clarke closed
the public hearing. The Board had reviewed the Staff Report and felt no '
need. for further clarification. Ms. Petrie moved for approval of DR 20-83.
M . Ericsson seconded the motion., and it was approved unanimously.
DR 150-83 and. VAR 12-83 A request by Ray Webber, Oak Rill Development
for approval of a 2400 square foot Plaid Pantry Store which would require.
a variance to allow parking within the required l0'' yard, a variance to
allow the structure to exist within the required 25' yard, a 15' variance
to height restriction for commercial structures closer than 60' to a
residential zone, and a variance to the required amount of parking space
The site is located at 1.115 McVey AveLue.
Mr. Galante reported the applicants were requesting this hearing be tabled
to the January 16, 1984 Board meeting. Mr. Hutchins moved to table DR 15-83
and VAR 12-83 to the January 16, 1984 meeting. The motion was seconded
by Ms, Petrie and passed unanimously.
DR16-83 - A request by RDVTN Architects, acting as agents :for Par West
�
Federal Bank for approval of signage for a bank which will be developed
from an existing real estate office. Approval for the remodel was granted
by the Board on December 5, 1.983. The structure is located at 111 State
411, Street.
C:Lty of Lake Oswego
Development Review Board
January 4, 1984
Page 2
•
Bob Galante gave the staff report. He said that the applicant had now
reduced the height of the ground sign so that it was got higher than the
highest point of the roof of the building (about 14 feet) . Although the
proposed sign code would allow a ground sign no h:Lghe' than 1,2 feet, staff
finds this height to be acceptable under current code and stated that it
conforms with the existing building design standard. The applicant is
aware that the sign may have to conform to the new sign code if adopted
and conformance is required. The applicants are also requesting two wall
signs, one to be visible from Leonard Street, .and one vt,►tible from the
parking int. Staff recommended it is not necessary to hnvo the sign
visible from the parking lot. The Board has the authority to allow a wall
sign that exceeds tihe two foot vertical dimension provided they do not
exceed the maximum area.
Russ Hanson, IIDVTN Architects, representing Far West Federal ral Bank, spoke
4 2.in behalf of the application Be said the signage will enme from two
branch locations which have been closed down in other, parts of, the state.
They would like to reuse the signs Because of theft cost, They are on a
timer, and will turn off around 9-10 p.m. Mr. Hanson mild that the entrance
of the building was not suitable for a wail sign, and that the sign on the
parking lot; side of the building will be useful, in the future when that side
develops, ile said the "money huts` across the street wottl.d be closed down.,
No one spoke in opposition, and Chairman Clarke closed the public portion
411 of the hearing for Board deliberation, Board discussion centered on
allowing the second wall sign facing the parking lot, Following consensus,
Mr. Hutchins moved for approval of DK 16-83 based on the recently submitted
drawings (Exhibit I) which show the signage not exceeding the highest point
Of the building, and using the existing signs ns dimensioned in the drawings.
Ms. Ericsson seconded the motion, '.and it was approved unanimously, Ms.
Vetr.la asked that the findings reflect the possibility that should the
proposed sign code be passed, signs could have to conform to the
new code (probably within five years) ,
DR 18-83 - A request by Keith D. Piercy acting as,agent,for Malakeh S,fi.
Talaghani to approve a 3,875 square.. foot two story office build:tnl', w>~th,
a parking lot for eleven cars in the nest End General Commercial zone.
The site is at 406 "A" Avenue at the SW Corner of 4th Street and "A"
Avenue,
Gary htiniszewslki presented the staff report. Some of the >nain concerns
in the staff report were security problems caused by thu building design,
parking lot design, and the reconstruction of Fourth Street, Also► Mr.
Miniszewski indicated that the staff report be amended to indicate that
a 10-foot wide sidewalk be required along "A" Avenue, That amendment
recommendation affected the last paragraph of page 4 and condition 1.3 on
page 6. Staff recommended approval of the proposal with 10 conditions,
mainly addressing the above concerns.
Keith Piercy, 768 SW Fir Loop, Tigard, s olo' in behalf of the a.p?lication.
He submitted a color board of proposed; materials and colors of roofing and
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Board!
January 4, 1984
Page 3
4110 siding to be used on the building (Exhibit ll) and a lighting plan (Exhibit I).
He said that construction of the project was planned or completion 1.20
days after issuance of the building permit.
brands Nelson, 348 Fourth Street, spoke in opposition to the appliCaLion.
She raised concerns with the cost of,• construction of the sidewalk along
Fourth Street. Staff said that half-street improvements would only be
made along Fourth along the frontage or the subject Property, She thlno
was concerned that additional street lights would shine in her. windows,
She said there was already a street 1•tght between her property and that
of the applicant, and also one at Fourth and "A" Avenue, She asked if
overflow Parking along the street would be a possibility, Mr. Hutchins'
said that the number of parking spaces allowed by the cede would be
required. It was also noted that overflow parking could not be kept off
public streets;
No one el►e spoke, and C►hairnan Clarke closed the public* portion of tae
hearing For Board deliberation. Mr. PLL1.iod asked if signage had been
discussed. Mr. Piercy showed Board members the location. of two small
signs, one on the rear entrance and another at the '►A." St►rceet entrance.
Both signs are to be 24" x 28►'. Following further discussion, Mr. Hutchins
moved for approval of DR 18-83 with the following conditions:
1, That the north Racing windows be designed to discourage forced
110 entry and vandalism,
2. That photo-cell controlled lighting of 1-1/2 foot candles minimum
illumination be provided at the rear and front entryways,
3. That the tree planted in the planting bed east or the rear entry
be of a variety that will provide a minimum Gt high trunk to I
allow surveillance of the entry,
4. That openings be provided in both building walls extending into
the parking area to enhance security.
5. That the parking area be redesigned to provide five standard
parking stalls, five compact and one handicapped stall. The
handicapped stall shall be signed and be located adjacent to the
entry.
6. That adequate backout (turn around) area he provided for the two
most westerly parking spaces.
7. That. columnar, flowering trees, compatible with the existing
cherry trees, be provided along "A" Avenue and Fourth Street.
8. That a resl;Lstered engineer certify the design of dry wells and
provide sufficient spot elevations in grading plans to illustrate
drainage between the building and the sidewalk at the front ("A"
410 Avenue) side of the building.
9. That a soils test be done by a registered professional soiLs
engineer or an engineering geologist prior to application for
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Board
January 4, 1984
Pace 4
11)
building permits to insure that buildings ,fosnadations will he
adequate,.
10. That Fourth Street be reconstructed along the subject property to
provide curb, gutter, a sidewalk to be 10' from "A" Avenue to
the driveway of the 'parking lot and then tapered to 5' wide with
n 5' planting strip to the residential property ;line, and a 20'
Paved roadway at the west side of the right-of-way centerline.
street lights shall also be provided along Fourth Street where the
improvements occur,
11. That a ten foot sidewalk be provided along "A" Avenue. The slope
from the sidewalk to the projected basement grade either be less
than 2:1 or a retaining wall or other method approved by the
Building Department be provided to stabilize a slope greater, by
2:1. A handrail shall be constructed for pedestrian safety along
the sidewalk if the slope is greater. thanes 1,
12. That a specific exterior lighting plan designed to meet the
standards be provided subject to approval of the City Engineer.
13. That a building schadule be submitted of completion six months from
approval of the findings of this hearing.
410 The motion was seconded by Hs. Ericsson, and passed unanimously,
Chairman Clarke declared a 10 minute recess. The meeting resumed at 9.00 p.m+
DR 1-83 - The City Council has remanded the applictat:io n to: the board for
the purse of tak•inn evidence on the question of the houndary,o.f the
essential wetland and reconsideration of the project's compliance with
4.020(2) (a) of the Wetland Standard. Approval of the shopping center, Towne
Square at Mt. Park, had been appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals
where the approval was upheld, except for compliance with 4.020(2) (a) of
the Wetland Standard. The shopping center site is located at the NW
intersection of Monroe Parkway and 13oones Ferry Road,
Mr. Galante gave the staff report, first reading the letter from Robert
and Janice Bruckner (Exhibit lilt) asking that the City apply strictest
interpretation of its guidelines related to the wetlands on the site and
enclosing an article from The Oregonian entitled, "Who Will Weep for. Our.
Wetlatds". Mr. and Mrs. Bruckner were not able to attend the hearing. I
Mr. Galante also presented copies of the opposition's exhibits to the Board.
These -:xhibits were labeled by staff as follows:
R Letter from Jess Claeser,, Jan. 4, 1984, 8 pp.
S LOPRI Introduction, 17 pp.
T Letter from Kathryn Gray, Jan. 90 1984, 2 pp.
U Supporting Documents and. Maps (LOPRI) , 12 pp,
4110 V Stream Corridors and Wetland Map, y pp.
W Hydrology Map, 2 pp.
X Water Resources (LOPRI) , 2 pp.
Y Distinctive Areas (LOPttt), 12 pp.
2 Outline of Essential Wetland from Hydrology Map
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Board
January 4, 1984
page 5
110 AA Letter from Developer to Public Works Director, , 2 pp,
OB Portion of April, 1982 Wetland Report, 6 pp.
CC Portion of Transcript, ,aunt 7, 1982, 3 pp,
OD l3ierly Map of Wetlands
[fa Natural Features Male
7PP Overlay, Tracing front Exhibit '1.
CC motion for Reconsideration before Ltl13A, 4 pi ,
l U Letter from Mr,, and Mrs. Bruckner, with attae1isn4+nt, 2 pp.
The Board also reviewed inhibit II, a memorandum frpm Jim Coleman, the
City Attorney, regarding the reason for the remand from 'LURA,
Mr, Calante said the major point addressed in the staff, report is the
difference between "wetland" and "essential Wetland", The City Standards
make a distinction between the two, and that difference was not: made clear
in the original, hearing, which is why this portion is bc!'1ng reheard.
Staff recommended to the 'Board that there are five functions (1a0C 4.035 of
the procedure section) which gives a basis for analyzing wha.t is an
essential wetland and what is simply a wetland, Those .five things include;
Natural groundwater recharge, storage, turbidity reduction, filtration of
nutrients, and natural biological .functions. Mr. Galante said the staff
report addresses these five functions, and defines the essential wetland,
boundary from that larger area of wetland, There is nn irrigation line,
storm water line, and portion of the detention pond which :Intrude into the
wetlands. Staff contends these are "wetland dependent" and that the
project complies with 4.020(2) (a) of the Wetland Standard,
Jim Coleman, City Attorney stressed to the Board, and anyone testifying
at the heerini , that the only evidence relevant on the l t►saue is evidence
which relates to the boundary of the essential wetland, The project has
been approved, and approved by LUBA on every issue except the wetland
issue,
Mr. Galante told the Board to strike Exhibit P from the record as that
exhibit was no longer in the file.
Proponents
Steven Janik, Attorney representing Mark Development Company, 101, SW Main
Street, Portland, spoke. He said the purpose this evening was not to
review the entire project, but only the wetland issue, If anything is
done in an essential wetland, it must be wetland dependent, Mr, Janik said
that at the previous hearing staff had been asked if the boundary of the
wetland Wes defined by the applicant. Staff said that,the boundary of the
essential wetland had been determined at the pre-application conference
with the applicant. Mr. Janik drew a rough outline of the wetland boundary
and the essential wetland boundary on the chalkboard for illustrative
purposes, He said that the defined essential wetland did not contain any
of the parking lot area. Staff has concluded that none of the parking area
Ask er aecessway intrudes into the essential wetland.
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Board
January 4, 1984
Page 6
Irrigation
J�tr,. JanikJanikcontinued his testimony. Re said there is an , l Sir 7�4tk er
installed to water the essential wetland area during dry periods, lie said
that since the sprinkler was to serve the wetland, the wetland is dependent
upon them, and ther,fore wetland dependent. Mr. Janik said that LUBA agreed
with respect to wetlands, that the overall project would not adversly
affect the wetland, lie said that the staff report is thorough and accurate,
and that they agree with it. Re urged that the Board not allow the opponents
to reconsider the history of this project, and requested that the staff
recommendation be adopted. lie stated that LUBA had agrcctd that the project.
improves the wetland area. Mr. Janik objected to the into nubmission of
avidenco by the opposition. He offered to answer any quentlons, and
stated that other representatives of Mark Development were present to
answer questions.
Opposition
gess Glaeser, Attorney representing ,the l!ot'est II:L rhland N(qi hhorhood_
Association and several other residents, 1200 Sw Main, Portland, spoke
in opposition. lie agreed that the submission of evidence writs late, but
that except for his letter and that of Kathryn Cray (not a setient o.f.. his) ,
everything else has been part of the record since the 1982 or 1983
application. There is nothing new in it. Mr. Oineser said that the
Development Standards do contain criteria (4.035) which aid and assist
in defining an essential wetland, but that the standards also define another.
41) method of defining an essential wetlands (4.015(2) . lie stated that those
wetlands which, appear on the City or Lake Oswego hydrology mop and
identified as essent.Lol on that map are essential as mapped, and the
functional definition of essential wetland need not be applied. Mr. Clueser,
went through almost all of his exhibits one by one, lie said the essential
wetlands ;identified on the hydrology map drawn in 1976, noted in the letter
from Ms. Cray, who was chairperson of the LOPRI task force, was an attempt
to identify and verify the natural resources of Lake Oswego, Mr. Glaesur
said the soils reports submitted by the applicant show saturated soils
which identify wetlands. It is his position that the hydrology map
identifies the essential wetlands, that wetland comprises 1/3 of the
applicant's property, and that development is occurring in the wetlands.
The developmentm is in and in close proximity to, the essential wetlands
>
as defined by the hydrology map. He taunted that the storm drain or
irrigation pipe are not wetland dependent.
Rebuttal
Mr. Janik said there is nothing in the record or evidence to prove the
accuracy of Mr. Glacser's sketches of the boundaries of the wetlands.
He stated that Mr. Cleaner's assertions regarding the boundary of the
essential wetland could not be correct; otherwise, the procedures
required to determine the boundary of the essential wetland would b(;
meaningless. He stated that J,UBA did not question the procedure of
determining the boundary. Mt. Janik reiterated his earlier statements
lip regarding the dependency of the storm drain and irrigation lines on the
wetlands, and their interdependenc with the wetlands,
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Board
January 4, 1984
page 7
fri Chairman Clarice closed the public portion of: the hetar.:tnl . Mac. Petrie asked
for the size of the detention pond. Mr. Galante said he did not know
the exact size, but that it was the boundary that was important. The
;size could be determined after the boundary was established, In response
to Mr. Hutchins, Mr. Galante said the open sapee area was in excess of
two acres and includes the storm water detention pond, the wetland area
and landscaping. tie explained the storm water detention system and the
:irrigation pipe in the wetlands functions fro Ms. Petrie. The storm water
drain is dependent upon being in that location and the irk-Igatlon line
provides additional waver to maintain the appearance of the wetlands
,for longer periods of time than naturally occur.
Ms, Vetrio noted that one of the Development Standards specifically said
that essential wetlands boundaries shall be determined at the time of the
pre-application conference, and asked if those boundaries had been
determined at the pre-application conference M . Galante answered
affirmatively. He said that in the last ORB hearing evidence had not
been adequately provided to differentiate wetlands and essential, wetlands,
and that was why LUBA had remanded the application of 4,020(2) (s) to the
City for determination of the wetlands issue. Ms. Petrie then asked if the
Lake Oswego hydrology maps were marked nEn for essential , should the code
be followed to determine the boundaries as a procedure. Mr. Galante read
the definition of "essential wetlands" 4.015(2) after the phrase "shown on
the hydrology map. . .", . ."The hydrology map shows the approximate location
400 and approximate extent of all known wetlands within the City."
Mr. Uutchins commented that the Standard specifically defines wetlands and
essential wetlands. It refers to the site analysis, application criteria, and
the functions necessary to determine if an essential wetland exists, fie
pointed out that at the last DR3 hearing, the applicants had a plan by
which the wetland would be enhanced, protected, and buffered, and that the
ConscrvancY Commission in February, 1983' said that the "wetland would be
protected to the maximum extent practical".
Upon request by the Board Mr. Galante responded to testimony and evidence
presented by the opponents. These included Ms, Cray'sw Letter, regarding
the LOPRI process and Mr. Claeser's remarks regarding the soils report
which showed saturated soil or water, at 1/2 foot below ground level.
Chairman Clarke asked Mr, Galante if any new evidence had been submitted
which would change his opinion on the boundary of the essential wetland,
M . Galante said no.
Chairman Clarke declared a five minute recess, The meeting resumed et
10:24 p.m. Mr. Coleman said that the record of the prior hearing should
be incorporated in this hearing record, and the Board agreed. A copy of
that record was presented to Mr. llutchins,
Mr. Galante addressed the letter (Exhibit AA) regarding a drainage ditch
placed to drain a marshy area, The area in which the ditch was located
is a substantial distance away from the wetland and of higher elevation.
II Mr. Galante quoted a portion from the letter which said they were well
outside any' boundary that could be drawn as the boundary of the wetlands.
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Board
1 January 4, 1984
Page 8
•
Or Mr. Galante read the lend-in sentence from 4,020(2) , 'Any development is
allowed in essential wetlands only after the Permit granting authority
concludes the following criteria are met: , . ." He noted that the wording
does not say in proximity to, but that development is allowed in.
Chairman Clarke stated he had heard nothing which proved the application
did not comply with the essential wetland boundary, Mr. Itotchin5 said
that 4.020(2)(a), taken in context with the rest of that section and
4.035, etc. has been shown to support the boundary of the essential
wetland, as illustrated. He also felt the essential wetland has been
protected and that the only portions of the development which touch it are
there to protect the wetland, Mr. Pilliod asked if he wan satisfied than,
that the Staff Report, including the exhibit containing the sketch
(Exhibits K-1 and K-2) defined the wetlands satisfactorily In terms of its
boundaries, Mr. Pilliod also asked if the Board had determined if there
was any Portion of the development that is inside the essential wetland; and
if there is, is it dependent upon being at this location. Mr. Hutchins
said that he agreed with the staff report, and accepted its recommendation.
Mr. Hutchins moved that the Board find on DR 1-83, the wetland issue, that
the essential wetland has been determined as shown in the: Staff Report,
specifically shown on Exhibit K, and that the intrustion into that
essential wetland (drainage line and sprinkler) are dependent upon that
location. Ms. Petrie said that "in compliance with the Lake Oswego
Wetland Standard" should be added to the motion. Mr. Hutchins agreed, and
the motion, which was seconded by Ms. Ericsson, passed unanimously,
APPROVAL .OF MINUTES
Ms, Petrie moved for approval of the minutes of the meeting of December 5,
1983. Ms. Ericsson seconded the motion, and it passed with Ms, Petrie,
Mr. Hutchins, and Ms. Ericsson voting in favor, Chairman Clarke abstained,
Another vote will be necessary to verity the first 3-0 vote,
OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions, and Order
The following findings were approved for signature:
DR 13-83 First Interstate Bank
DR 11-81/DR 17-83 - Galen Court
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman Clarke adjourned the meeting
at. 10:57 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kristi Hitchcock
Secretary
f n
I
•
511
f�`1 1 x.
'';' '.r
5.
r'r
.,... rr:xr.0�« �.(� ° , #x`'a'�.,tc'^G..t '...ea.t .' .., ... *.' 4 ,7 'J/'.!'.ab.P.. ._ ,,, n s-„ ,SA.,..,.Si`o 'ua. x. `,c, ,,,;`tl.
j ; rr
CITE pF LAKE OSWEGt? I
DEVEUDPMENT PEVIEW BOARD Mi:NUI'Es'
JAN ARY 16, 1984
The Development Review Board meeting of January 16, 1984 was called to
order by Chairman Frank Clarke at 7:38 p,tn, Board members present
were: Chairman Clarke, Shirley Petrie, Richard Hutchins, Katherine
Ericsson, Richard Eslick, and Anthony Wright, Lynn Takeuchi had an
excused absence Staff present were: City Planners Bob Galante and
Stan Tidman, Deputy City Attorney Mark l'illiod, and Secretary Eristi
Hitchcock.
APPROVAL OF MINUIES
Approval of minutes of the January 4, 1984 meeting was delayed until
later in the meeting,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Galante reported a letter had been received pertaining to VAR 14-83,
and that it would be presented to the Board at the time of the public
hearing for that variance.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
41, VAR 14-83 - An appeal by Philip Jutteist ad, acting as the agent for
Barbara Giddings, of a staff denial at Mass I Variance, The applicant
has requested to vary the rear yard setback to 15' where 20' is required.
The property is located at 154 Kinsgate Road,
Mr, Tidman gave the staff report. He said the variance request was to
allow construction of an 8' deck at the rear of the dwelling which is
under construction at 154 Kingsgate Road. Mr. Tillman listed the sequence
of events leading to staff's denial of the variance request. He read
a note written on a hearing notice which bad been sent to Guido E,
Zakovics, 28 Crestfield Court, Lake Oswego (Exhibit 7) received
January 10, which opposed the variance. The Board was directed to
Exhibit 6, which was the staff's administrative review of the application,
Staff felt the variance criteria had not been adequately addressed, A
deck has been shown to be constructed on all site plans submitted to the
City. Deck, or patio construction can intrude into required setbacks
if it is 30" or less from the ground. Mr. Tidman answered questions
from Board members and Mr. Pilliod', clarifying the location of the
dwelling and setbacks on the site plan (Exhibit C).
Phil Jutteistad, Agent for B & D Investments and Barbara Giddiness, spoke
in behalf of the appeal, He distributed to the Board a letter from the
owner, Phillip Hammond, and drawings showing elevations of the existing
construction (labelled Exhibits 8 and 9). He said that during dis-
cussions with the Planning Department in 1980, setback requirements had
III been shown as 12' for the front yard, He stated that the house had
been designed and sold before the 181' setback had been established to
allow offstreet parking. The house next door had redesigned the deck
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Board
January 16, 1984
Page 2
e
so that it would meet the rear yard setback requirements, but the owner
of this property did not wish to redesign his house and deck to meet
those requirements. Most surrounding homes have decks which are
contiguous with the main living area as requested by the applicant in
this variance.
No one else spoke, and Chairman. Clarke closed the public hearing for
Board deliberation. Mr. Esl:Lck stated that since there was a building
constructed of similar character and exterior design, etc. that does
meet the requirements, the hardship is caused by the applicant himself.
Solutions to the problem without a variance are possible. Following
further discussion, Mr. Eslick moved to uphold Staff's administrative
denial of VAR 14-83. Ms. Ericsson seconded the motion, and it passed
with Mr. Eslick, Ms. Ericsson, Mr. Hutchins, and Chairman Clarke voting
in favor. Ms. Petrie voted against the motion.
DR 15-83/VAR 12-83 - A request by Ray Webber, Oak Hill Development
for approval of a 2400 square foot Plaid -Pantry Store which wc�uTd re
quire a variance to allow parking within the required 10' yard, a
variance to allow the structure to exist within the required 25' yard,
a 15' variance to height restriction for commercial structures closer
than 60' to a residential zone, and a variance to the required amount
• of parking spaces. The site is located at 1115 McVey Avenue,
Mr. Galante presented the staff report, submitting copies of new exhibits
(revised site plan, Exhibit M and supplemental narrative, Exhibit L) to
the Board. He discussed future improvements to McVey and said that those
improvements are some distance off. He addressed some of the concerns
with the project. The handicapped parking space as shown is in conflict
with the loading area. The parking area has been modified, and no parking
spaces are within the 10' setback, only a portion of the loading area
remains. One of the concerns of staff was that proper turning area was
not provided for backing and exiting. The modification has taken care of
this problem. Staff recommended that approval could be granted to the
height variance requested.
•
Mr. 'Galante addressed the applicant's supplemental narrative and said that
it addressed the variance criteria verywell. Staff agrees with e s the appli-
cant
that the proposed use would have less impact than the existing us
of the building (a service station). The major issue is parking, Mr.
Galante said he had reviewed four other Plaid Pantries in the area and
found that the duration of use was very short; at no time did he find
more than seven cars parked in the lots. He reviewed the stores twice
a day for three days. Staff agrees with the applicant that no more than
six of the eight parking stalls would be used, Staff had recommended
denial, principly based on the lack of adquate evidence relating to the
criteria for determining hardship. Mr. Galante stated that adequate evidence
now existed in the record if the Board wished to approve the project.
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Board
January 16, 1984
Page 3
Hal Huitt, Greenhill. Associates, 1730 Skyline Blvd. , Portland re resenting
Plaid Pantry Stores, `spoke in behalf of the application, He said that
Mr. Galante had covered the application well, and said he would answer, any
questions the Board members might have. He said they normally located the
handicapped space where they have it shown because it ;lbrt rarely used, but
are willing to relocate it as requested, and will provide a ramp for access.
Roger Stayer, 2540 NE Riverside Way, Portland, addressed questions raised
regarding lighting. He said Plaid Pantry usually waits until the store
is in place before installing lighting. When lights are :installed, they
are normally placed on the side of the building facing downward
In response to questioning regarding signs by Ms. Petrie, Mr, Galante
give the dimensions and locations proposed for signage, Be said that the
pole sign was taller than the building, and noted that in the past the
Board has requested the signs be no higher than the ridge of the building.
He also pointed out that if the proposed sign code is adopted, the height
of the sign would be nonconforming and the sign may have to conform to
the new code within five years. Mr, Hui,tt said that they would like to
put the sign within the 10' of right-of-way they would dedicate, They are
willing to give the property for the right-of-way, but since the street
improvements appear to be a long way off, they would like to put the sign
in that area as is currently being used by the other eight businesses in
the area.
Mr. Stayer listed types and colors of materials to be used for the building.
9pposition
Robert Durst, 3216 SW Scholls Ferry Court, spoke in opposition to the
proposal. He is the owner of the Sentry store in the next block, and
feels that the need for another store should be considered before approval.
Ms, Petrie said that to her knowledge the Board does not review need.
Chairman Clarke agreed, and the Board did not consider the issue further,
No one else spoke, and Chairman Clarke closed the public hearing for
Board deliberation.
Following discussion, Ms. Petrie moved for approval of DR 15-83 and
VAR 12-.83, incorporating the Staff Report of November 21, 1.983 and
modified convents as well as the new exhibits submitted this evening
with the following conditions:
1. That an additional 10' be dedicated to the City for right-of-way
along ? Vey Blvd.
2, That the dedicated area be preserved free of structures including
signs.
3. That a non-remonstrance agreement be signed for future street
improvements along McVey,
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Board
January 16, 1984
Page
4110
4. That photometric data be submitted to illustrate lighting to
staff's satisfaction prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. That the pole sign be no higher than the parapet or ridge of
the roof.
6, That an irrigation plan designed to the standards oE the Turf
Irrigation Manual be submitted to the staff prior to issuance
of building permits.
Mr. Hutchins seconded the motion, and it passed with Mso 'Petrie, Mr. Hutchins,
Ms. Ericsson, and Chairman Clarke voting for the motion, Mr, Eslick
voted against the motion.
DR 21-83/SD 27/83 - A request by HDVTN Architects acting, as agents for
MDE Investments/Jonland Corporation for modifications and a lot:line
adjustment to the previous approval on the site (DR 6-82) , which is located
on the north side of Jean Road near Lakeview Boulevard,
Mr. Galante presented the staff report, Staff recorm)ends approval with
12 conditions He answered questions for Mr. Eslick concerning phasing
of the project,
Ask Mike Parrish, }IDVTN Architects, 215 NW Park Portland, representing
John Johnson and Mike Elton, spoke in behalf'of the application, He
addressed the staff's recommendations as follows;
1) No problem, but would like the Board to be aware of the fact
that the type of tenant will determine the number and locations
of parking spaces.
2) No conflicts.
3) would like to provide a non-remonstrance agreement for street
improvements as they prefer the formation of an LID to half
street improvements.
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) - No Problem.
11) Will provide development schedule.
12) No problems
He provided a description of Building "}" (Exhibit L), and said that
Building "A" will be repainted a uniform color to match. Building "C"
will be similar to Building "A", but will have many of the characteristics
of Building "B".
No ore else spoke, and Chairman Clarke closed the hearing for Board
(10 deliberation. Following discussion, Mr. Eslick moved for approval of
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Board
January 16, 1984
Page 5
410
of DR 21-83/SD 27-83 with the following conditions:
1, That the driveway along the sides of building "s" be signed as I
one-way drives, or that they be increased to 20' in width. Radii
of the driveways should be smoothed to allow proper turning.
2. That street improvements be completed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
3. That the 8' wide bikeway be aligned with the Portion already planned
and that ramps be provided at the access roadway,
4. That walkways where bumper overhang exists be increased in width
toprovide
provi e a minimum of 5' of unobstructed walkway surface,
5. That the ground sign at building "C" be moved across the aisle
to preserve vision clearance,
6, That drainage plans be revised to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
7. That lighting data, including photometrics, be illustrated to the
satisfaction of the City 'Engineer.
111 8. That the lot line adjustment be recorded at the County Recorder's
Office.
9. That northern oak be used as street trees
and, that the following items are to be brought back before the Board under
unfinished business:
1. Parking data to illustrate that parking does not conflict with
loading areas and provides a minimum ratio of one space/300 square
feet of building,
2. Additional signage data including dimensions.
3. A development schedule with specific time periods.
The motion was seconded by Ms.. Ericsson and passed unanimously,
DR 23-83 A request by Roy Montague and Giis I<ollct for approval of a
3440 square foot addition with related site improvements to a two-
building manufacturing site located at the northwest intersection of
Piikington Road and Rosewood Street.
Mr. Galante gave the staff report. The applicant has submitted a letter
A to the Board (Exhibit G) which contained additional information. Staff
lip recommended approval with six conditions. Two of those, numbers 4 and
6, may be eliminated by the information submitted in the applicant's
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Board
January 16, 1984
Page 6
letter. He recommended that half-street nprovernmte not be required for
Pilkington (Condition 2) and that a non-remonstrance agreement be signed
for future improvements because it is a County road and alignment has not
yet been determined. Mr, Galante added that Condition 2 should include
a 5' walkway along the property line (Rosewood Street).
Ray Montague, 3131 Ibrner Road, West Linn, spoke in behalf of the applcation,
He disagrees with the requirement for ha .f-street improvements to Rosewood
Street. He said that they have only 93' of frontage on Rosewood and that
the requirement would make the project economically infeasible. They world
be willing to sign a non-remonstrance agreement for future improvements
and would be willing to participate in an LID for construction of the
improvements. They would also sign a non-remonstrance agreement for
sidewalk improvements along Rosewood. He submitted a lighting brochure
(Exhibit 1) , and answered questions for Board members,
No one else spoke, and Chairman Clarke closed the public hearing for Board
deliberation. Following discussion, Ms. Petrie moved for approval of
DR 23-83 with the following conditions:
1, That 5' of property for right-of-way be dedicated along Rosewood
Street,
2, That the applicant sign a nonrem nstrance agreement for Improve
merits along Rosewood and Pilkington.
3, That lighting specifications be provided to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer,
4. That drainage be constructed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, and finalized drainage plans be submitted before
issuance of building permits.
Ms, Ericsson seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Approval of Minutes
Ms. Petrie moved for approval of the minutes of December 5, 1983,
(A second vote was necessary' to validate the first 3-0 vote,) 'Mr.
Hutchins seconded the motion, and it passed with Ms. Petrie, Mr.
Hutchins, and Ms. Ericsson voting in favor. Mr. Eslick and Mr.
Wright abstained.
It was zroved by Mr. Hutchins seconded by Ms. Ericsson, and passed
unanimously to approve the minutes of January 4, 1983. Mr, Hutchins,
Ms. Ericsson, Mr. Clarke, and Ms, Petrie voted for the motion, Mr.
411 Eslick and Mr, Wright abstained.
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Board
January 16, 1984
Page 7
Eslick. and Mr, Wright were excused from the remainder of the
meeting.
findings, Conclusions, and Order
It was moved, seconded, and passed unanimously to approve signing
of the findings for DR 1-83 with minor modifications to pages 2, 3,
and 8. Chairman Clarke will sign the findings with the 'changes on
the following day (January 17, 1984.
A TOURtVMENT
`there being no further business before the Board, Chairman Clarke adjourned
the meeting at 10:51 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kristi Hitchcock
Secretary
Ask Ich
IIP
• }I'
•
•
I
.. idfif.M.�1�.2d4Rin` k . 1M«�t+i
P aw
CITY OF O Ap y�
LAKE SWE �J
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 6, 1984
The Aevelopment Review Board meeting of February 6, 19844 was celled to
order by Vice-Chairman Shirley Petrie at 7;30 p.m. Board Timers present
were Shirley Petrie, Richard Eslick, Richard Hutchins, Katherine Ericsson,
and Anthony Wright. Staff present were City Planner, Rob Galante and
Secretary, Kristi Hitchcock,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms, Ericsson moved for approval of the minutes of January 16, 1984, The
motion was seconded by Mr, Hutchins and approved unanimoualy.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None
PUBLIC' HEARING
DR 24-83 - A request by Mackenzie/Saito & Associates P.C. actin as
agents for the Design Group, Inc, , for approve o, a ' , f. square oot
addition to 41 f irniture manufacturing building located at 4875 Lakeview
Blvd. between Lakeview Blvd. and Jean Road.
• Mr, Galante presented the staff report, The applicant has proposed a
May, 1984 startup date and an August, 1984 completion date. Staff
recommended that the project not be approved until the parking and site
circulation problems have been resolved,
Mr. Eslick raised a question regarding parking in the street, which had
been discussed during the prior application. Mr. Galante said that this
actually had no bearing on this application, but that parking was still
occurring on the street.
Gre$ Rannick, 0690 SW Bancroft, Portland, Mackenzie/Saito Architects,
spore in behalf of the application. It was clarified for him why the
parking stalls should be nine feet. He thought the 26 foot backing
distance was excessive, but said they would adjust the parking stalls
to nine feet and eliminate the landscaping peninsula. He explained the
backing maneuvers shown on Exhibit H--1,
Mr, Eslick questioned the elevations shown on Exhibit C, asking if there
was a difference in function which would necessitate the height of the
addition. Be also asked if the new addition's materials would be
compatible,
Y Wietzer, Route 3, Box 51, Gaston, spoke in answer to Mt. Eslick's
q esons. he said one of the reasons for the height of the new building
was that the old building was not high enough for lights, dust collection,
11, and the operation of a fork lift, The older portion will be used for
storage when production is shifted into the new space. The same materials
Development Review Board Minutes
1984February 6,
Page 2
410
used for construction of the existing building will be used for the
addition. Mr. Wietzer said he would prefer iprovement of Jean Road
through the formation of an LID, and would be willing to sign a non-
remonstrance agreement for future improvements. He said that without
"no Parking" signs along Lakeview Blvd. people were going to continue
parking along that road,
Mike E1ton� owner of the Executive Park across the street, spoke requesting
that the aggregate used in the structure be designed in a way to make
it more pleasing to look at, that the berms be planted. in grass rather
than have barkdust, and that the building wall be broken up with some
varying surface treatment. He, was also concerned about possible noise
from the cyclone, and did not want the loading doors facing his building,
Mr. Wietzer s ke in rebuttal, He said the noise levels outside the
building s ou be low. He said the trees planned for planting along •
the exposed wall should grow to screen most of the building, He drew
a sketch showing the line of vision to the building, and how much of
the building would be screened from view, He answered questions from, ,
1 Mr. Eslick regarding noise and DEQ requirements. He said he did not
know the D1Q requirements, but stated the masonry walls would effectively
contain the noise, Vice-Chairman Petrie asked if he had received any
noise complaints since it had, been in operation. Mr. Wietzer answered
411 negatively. Mr. Galante said the City had not received Complaints
about noise generated by this business,
No one else spoke, and Vice-Chairman Petrie closed the public hearing
for Board deliberations,
Board members concerns :included; 1) the blank wall facing Jean Road
and the need to screen and improve the exterior; 2) the need for a
landscaping plan which shows existing trees and their relationship to
other development improvements; 3) parking which should not he allowed
along Lakeview Blvd, ("no parking signs"posted) ; 4) the requirements for
improvement of Jean Road; 5) circulation within the site; 6) the
parking dimensions.
Vice-Chairman, Petrie asked staff if the Board had authority to express
their concerns about the physical appearance of a project. Mr, Galante
said the Board could address materials, heights, and overall proportions
in relation to the building being complimentary to adjacent structures,
He read other portions of the Building Design Standard as well,
Following further discussion, the Board reached a consensus that further
information was needed to address concerns listed previously, Mr,
Hutchins moved to table DR 24-83 to the February 22, 1984 meeting, The
motion was seconded by Mr, Eslick, and passed unanimously,
o+ '4• . PLANNING
Mr. Galante gave the Board n rbers copies of the draft sign ordinance to
review for comments at the next meeting, Mr, Hutchins made a few
Development Review Board Minutes
February 6, 1984
Page 3
i
comments an the draft sign ordinance;
1) Page 2, #4 Awnings
Needs the wording changed for last sentence for clarification,
2) Page 9, #2 - Last sentence needs rewording,
3) Page 130 #6 - Temporary Interior Signs
Needs the word "not" added between "shall" and "be", The
Board decided it should read ", , ,shall be displayed no more
than 30 days, . ,u
4) Page 14, #8 Home Occupation Siam
Should there be locational limits to where the sign is placed?
5) Page 14, #9' - Incidental Signs r Typo needs correction.
The Draft Sign Ordinance will be reviewed by the Board at the February 22,
1984 meeting,
ill OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions, & Order
The following findings were approved for signature
DR 18-83-85 Approved with corrections; will need another vote
to verify the first vote,
DR 14-83-86 Approved as written,
COUNCIL ACTIONS
Mr. Galante advised the Board the Council would be meeting on February 140
1984 to consider an appeal of the Board's decision of DR 1-83, hark
Development Company.
The Board recommended that new members, when approved by Council, attend
a meeting with the Board before they take their positions. The Board
invited new members to attend the February 22, 1984 meeting,
ii
ADJOURNMENT
i 1
There being no further business, Vice-Chairman Petrie adjourned the meet
at 9;00 p,m.
Respectfully' Submitted,
Kristi Hitchcock
Secretary
kh
i
011151
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO i ; '-)' .D
410 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 22, 1984
The 'Development, Review Board meeting of February 22, l9$4 was called to
order by Chairman Frank Clarke at 7:32 p,m, Board members present were
Frank Clarke, Katherine Ericsson, Richard Eslick, Richard Hutchins,;Shirley
Petrie, Lynn Takeuchi, and Anthony Wright, Staff present were City
Planners, Bob Galante and Stan Tillman; Deputy City Attorney, Mark Pilliod;
and, Secretary, Kristi Hitchcock.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Petrie moved for approval of the minutes of February 6, 1984, The
motion was seconded by Mr, Hutchins, and approved with Ids, 'etrie, M .
Hutchins, Mr. Eslick, and Mr. Wright voting for the motion; and, Mr,
Clarke and W. Takeuchi abstahaing,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
DR 24-83 - A request by Mackenzie/Saito S_Associates, P,C, acting as
Ali agents for the Design Group, Inc. , for approval of a 23,426 square 1voot
addition to a furniture manufacturing building TOcated at 5875 Lakeview
Blvd, , between Lakeview Blvd, and Jean Road,
Mr. Takeuchi announced he had a conflict of interest and would abstain, He
explained that his firm prepared the plans for the project.
Mr. Galante presented the staff report, The hearing had been continued
from the February 6, 1984 meeting in order for the applicant to submit
further information requested by the Development Review Board, Mr,
Galante passed additional exhibits submitted by- the applicant to the
Board for review: 1) Revised building design showing a raked surface (fn
the upper portion of the new addition, 2) Revised landscape plan showink
additional berms, street trees, and existing trees; and, 3) Revised site
plan. He said the applicants comply with applicable standards, and hav€
addressed the items required by the Board at the last meeting, and re-
commended approval of the application with the added condition that eit1^er
the proportions of the, raked surface of the exposed aggregate be modified
to more adequately break up the scale of the building, or that some other
treatment be used. He answered questions from Board iii ri,errs.
Gre Hranac, Mackenzie/Saito Architects 0690 SW Bancroft Portland, spoke
Inc o ,t a appcaant. He reviewed the changes that tad been made In
the plans to conform with the Board's requests, and answered questions
from Board members, Be stated that the texture of the raked concrete
Amk would be subtle, and would not conflict with, the exposed aggregate surfa;fe
IIP
f,.
,
,,,'d u
Development Review Board
Ili
Minutes
February 22, 1984
Page 2
•
No one spoke in opposition, and Chairman Clarke closed the public hearing
for Board deliberation. After general agreement that the applicant had
addressed all of the Board's concerns, Mr, Eslick moved for approval, of
DR 24-83 as submitted. The motion was amended to add two conditions;
1, That half street improvements be provided alonf. Jean Road if an
;STD has not been formed to complete the road by the time of
completion of the proposed addition,
2. That irrigation plans be submitted prior to issuance of building
permits.
The amended motion was seconded by Ms, Petrie, and passed with Mr, Eslick.
Mr. Hutchins, Ms, Petrie, Ms. Ericsson, Mr, Wright, and Chairman Clarke
gyrating in favor, Mr. Takeuchi abstained,
The Board reccurended that the Traffic Control Board reconsider the
posting of "NO PARKING" signs along the applicants property on Jean Road,
VAR 13-83 - A request for appeal by Gerald Chase for. David Pennington of
a staff denial of a Class I Variance, The applicant had requested to vary
the rear yard setback to 24 feet where 25 feet is required in an R-10 zone,
The property is located at 16873 Canyon Drive, The case involves the
siting of a new garage built without benefit of a building permit on the
property.
Stan Tidman presented the staff report. He reviewed the history of
actions by the applicant and staff, and gave the basis for staff denial
of the variance, He recommended that. the Board uphold the staff s
decision to deny the Class I variance. ' ', Tidman answered questions
raised by Board members.
Gerald Chase, Attorney, 620 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 825, Portland, 97204,
spoke in behalf of Mr. Penn ton, the contractor, He addressed Mr,
Eslick's question regarding whether work had been discontinued after the
"Stop Work Order". He said that Mr, Pennington had applied for a building,
permit a day after the order had been issued, and that work had proceeded
after the order had been posted to protect the investment that his client
had made. He said that Mr, Pennington had applied for the variance when
it was necessary. Mr. Chase referred the Board to Exhibit A, lot 6800,
He said Canyon Drive should be determined to be the front yard of the
property. He said that when the Comprehensive Plan went into effect, it
changed the position of the front yard, etc. on. the property, He explained
that the house on the property had been built prior to the date that the
Comprehensive Plan went into effect, Mr. Chase said the new garage was
nine feet from the property line, He stated that Mr. Paris (owner of
lot 6700) had measured the distance from, his property line to the dwelling
confirming the distance, and that the variance should have actually been
requested for 14 feet and not one foot, He said that if this were consi-
dered the side yard, no variance would have been necessary.
Development Review>Board
Minutes
February 22, 1984
Page 3
410
It was clarified by staff that the Zoning Code was applicable, not the
Comprehensive Plan, and verified Mr Chase's contention that the house
was built before the Zoning Code went into effect.
Mr. Chase gave the size of the garage and said that it had to be located
10 feet from the house, He said that the reason for construction of the
structure was so that the elderly resident of the house could have someone
live on the property and take care of her. He said the applicant''s
position was that the staff position be reversed. The applicant would
be willing to comply with conditions recommended by staff:,
David Pennington, 2700 North. Emerson, Portland, spoke in behalf of his
appeal. He addressed the questions regarding building permit not being
applied for in advance of construction and why work went on after the
site was posted to stop construction.
Mr. Pilliod asked Mr. Pennington if he was aware that building permits
were required to be obtained in advance of construction, Mr, Pennington
answered affirmatively.
Chairman Clarke asked for clarification of the Board's authority in this
case. I`r.. Pilliod said the Board should address the criteria for the
variance in 48.650; that the garage is located in the rear yard because
IMF of the requirements of the current code for new construction (the garage
is new construction) ; the determination of whether this is a Class I
or Class II variance is not crucial. Mr. Pilliod read the criteria for
approval of the variance.
Upon questioning by Chairman Clarke, Mr, Galante said that any punitive
action would be taken through the Courts if necessary, and that the
Board should not use the variance process for that purpose,
No one spoke in opposition to the variance,
Mr. Chase summarized the applicant's position for the Board,
No one else spoke, and Chairman Clarke closed the public hearing for
Board deliberations,
Following discussion, the Board indicated a consensus to uphold staff's
approval. They did not feel the criteria for a variance were all met,
Mr Takeuchi moved for denial of the appeal of VAR 13-83, upholding
staff's decision. The motion 'was seconded by MS. Ericsson, and passed
unanimously. The applicant and his representative were advised of appeal
rights.
GENERAL PLANNING
Sign Code
Mr. Galante gave the Board copies of memorandums written by Paul Xochihua
a student intern who had worked with the Chamber of Commerce and citizen
Development Review Board
Minutes
February 22, 1984
Page 4
410
groups on the Draft Sign Code, and a memorandum .frau Planning Director
Sandra Young providing information on the Draft Sign Code, The Board
determined that further study was necessary before their discussion and
recommendation on the sign code. They will discuss the draft sign code
at their next meeting, March 5, 1984,
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr, Galante advised the Board as to the status of applicants for those
posit:ions open on the Development Review Board.
Findings, Conclusions, and Order
Ms. Petrie moved for a second approval of DR 18-83-85 findings necessary
to verify the first vote. The trotion was seconded, and passed with Ms,
Petrie, Mr.. Hutchins, and Ms, Ericsson voting in favor, Chairman Clarke,
Mr. Eslick, Mr. Takeuchi, and Mr. Wright abstained,
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting Was adjourned at 9:14 p,m,
by Chairman Clarke.
ill Respectfully Submitted,
Kristi Hitchcock
Secretary
kl7
it
i',
n� 1
0 11 `' '
,
14I
1,
' ,I
1 i1 J ,1
'a, It
, 4 I
11
,
I1 f? '
I1 It I , 11
', l' ''' it
t
i 1
1
I' 1' (,II
h i� II
I ,
1
Ij le
I IT ,
1
1, 1, '
�i I' Ii
Il
,
i
t
"I Jj
n
'
it \ I
1V4 U 0.�rA..' t a4V.i. ` ..}' .'ita l ;ti ri+ 1�, 4"*d ;a . ..,h.a41 r •4 ..4'•
11iVL
CITY'' or LAKE OSWEGo
010 PP AP
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MARCH 5, 1984
The Development Review Board meeting of March 5, 1984 was called to order
by Chairman Frank Clarke at 7:32 p.m. Board members present were:
Chairman Clarke, Shirley Petrie, Richard Eslick, Lynn Takeuchi, Richard
Hutchins, Katherine Ericsson, and Anthony Wright. Staff present were:
City Planner, Bob Galante; Deputy City Attorney, Mark Pilliod; and
Secretary, Kristi Hitchcock,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Hutchins roved for approval of the nanutes of February 22, 1984 as
written. The motion was seconded by + . Ericsson, and passed unanimously.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARING
DR 1-84 - A request by Kenneth B. Hobson for approval of changes to the
exterior of an existing buildin to allots its conversion to a dry cleaners.
The structure is located at 01 Sout State Street,
Amk Mr, Galante presented the staff report, Staff recommended approval with
lip the conditions that mechanical equipment be screened. In response to a
question from Mr. Eslick, Mr. Galante said that the number of parking
spaces are adequate for the type of business, and that the spaces
currently leased to the Pizza Foundry will remain leased,
Ken Hobson, 1509 NE 10th Avenue, spoke in behalf of the application, He
said this will be a dry 'cleaning establishment, and those cars entering
will be dropping off clothing and leaving. There will be no long term
parking. He said he owns two other cleaning businesses, and that there
have rarely been more than two cars parked at one time in the lots. Mr
Hobson siad the existing tanks behind the building will be removed and
none will be added. There will be the air stacks and a chrome box on the
roof, which they will screen if requested. He submitted a water color
rendering of the building as it will look when finished (labelled Exhibit M) ,
and answered questions from Board members
No spoke in opposition, and Chairman Clarke closed the public hearing for
Board deliberation. Following discussion, NS, 'Petrie mid for approval
of DR 1-84 with the condition that if there is any visible mechanical
equipment; it be screened to the staff's satisfaction. Mr. Eslick seconded
the motion and it passed unanimously.
Mr. Eslick asked that the findings reflect the. fact that the lease
agreement for parking spaces with the Pizza Foundry remain in effect,
BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions, and Order
Mr. Hutchins moved to sign the findings for VAR 13-83. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Petrie, and passed unanimously.
Development Review Board
March 5, 1984
Page Two
41/
Ms. Petrie moved that the findings for DR 24-83 (with corrections) , DR 23-83,
DR 21-83, and SD 27-83 be signed. The motion was seconded by Ms. Ericsson
and passed unanimously,
Following, discussion, Mr. Eslick moved to sign the findings for VAR 12-83/
DR 15-83 with corrections to be made by staff for later signature by
Chairman Clarke. The motion was seconded by Ms, Ericsson and passed
unanimously.
.
COUNCIL ACTIONS
Mr. Galante said that the three vacancies on the Development Review Board
would be filled at the City Council meeting March 6, 1984.
The Board discussed their annual report to the City Council, which will be
presented Tuesday, March 6. The presentation will be made by Richard
Hutchins,
c l oint meet n of the City
Board ofasei.a
the Bo d
1�'b:. Galante advisedh p �
Council and Planning Cc fission to be held Tuesday, March 21 at 7130 p.tn
in the Council Chambers. He said Board ttEnbers were welcome to attend as
it was a public meeting; however, there probably would not be an opportunity
for participation.
41, GENERAL PLANNING
The Board discussed the Draft Sign Code and suggested additions and changes
for improvement. The comments of individual Board members were recorded.
A sunxnary will be prepared for both Board and staff review,
ADJOURNMENT ,<
There being no further business, Chairman Clarke adjourned the meeting
at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
44,442:4, det_4,
Kristi Hitchcock
Secretary
4110
it
• \\ • - ,
yf ‘' '
it Ala ,
/t
I ,
/ 1/ %
r 1
r
/j
{1,1 (1
II
/ fftlr
'I £, I��///� I'
I
/ v '
h � a t_
,rw„+ ,,,, a i.,,.t.. �... .,... �,.� a q, t.. ..�..�.1_ y . '_. ,'^ i 1SPtltaa.. �w
r
CITY OF LAB O 3WEGO t
DEVEC OP REVIEW BOARD
'.
?UNITIES
MARCH 19, 1984
j The Development Review Board meeting was called to order by Acting
Chairman Richard Es lick. Board members present were Richard Eslick,
Katherine Ericsson, Richard Hutchins, John Fulton, and John Glasgow.
Lynn Takeuchi and Anthony Wright were excused, Staff present were City
Planners Bob Galante and Gary Miniszewski, Deputy City Attorney Mark
Pilliod, and Secretary Kristi Hitchcock, Acting Chairman Eslick welcomed
the two new members, John Fulton, and John Glasgow,
1a F CTION OF OFFICERS
Ms, Ericsson nominated Mr. Eslick for chairman, Mr. Eslick declined
due to conflicts with his work schedule. Mr. Eslick nominated Mr,
Hutchins for chairman. The nomination was seconded by Ms, Ericsson,
and passed unanimously, Election of Vice-Chairman was delayed until
the next meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Eslick moved for approval of the minutes of March 5, 1984 as written.
Ms. Ericsson seconded the motion, and it passed with, Mr. Eslick) Ms•,
Ericsson, and Mr. Hutchins voting in favor and Mr. Fulton and Mr,Glasgow
All abstaining. The approval will need a second vote to verify the first
IMF vote as only three Board members eligible to vote were present.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None
PUBLIC IEARIINGS
A sign application by Leonard Reinecke for Texaco, Inc, requesting approval
of a wall sign with 2'6-3 /16" high letteringfor a structure located at
! S
209 "A" Avenue,
Mr, Galante presented the staff report. He stated that the City Council,
upon review of an appeal of the Development Review Board's denial of the
previous request, determined that this sign was a wall sign and remanded
the application back to the Development Review Board for review of the
sign's conformance to the Sign Code. Staff recommended approval of the
sign. Mr; Galante read applicable sections of the Sign Code in response
to questioning from Mr. Eslick. He said that the sign is proposed to be
placed on two sides of the canopy, which is allowed by code.
Leonard Reinecke, 909 NE 31st Avenue, Portland, representing Texaco, Inc.
spoke, saying that the 1oard had all applicable infb.oration re at to
the proposed signage, and answered questions for Board members. He
said that there was a problem in determining that this is a wall sign,
He said this was the smallest standard sign used by Texaco, Inc. throughout
the country, and that a smaller sign would require a custom made sign. He
lip said the sign would be placed on two sides of the canopy along street
frontages, and that no sign would be placed on the "A" Avenue side of the
canopy.
Development Review Board Minutes
March 19, '1984
Page Two
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for
Board deliberation. Mr, Eslick stated his opposition to approval of the
signage. He felt the height of the letters should conform to the two
foot height standard, did not like the internal lighting of the sign, and
felt its overall size was too large,` Ms, Ericsson stated she understood
the company's position, but felt the sign was too large overall Chairman
Hutchins said the proposed sign code would not allow a sign of this size,
but that it was not yet adopted. He felt the overall square footage of
the sign was too large. Mr. Glasgow stated the proposed signage on the
canopy would be much more attractive than the existing ground sign. Mr,
Galante read the language in the sign code 47.470 which says that a sign
may be 70% of the street frontage of the building wall multiplied by two,
This section would put the proposed sign in conformance with the sign code,
Following Further discussion, Mr. Eslick maned for denial of the sign
application for Texaco, Inc, dated March I , 1984, The notion died for
lack of a second. After the options were illustrated by Mr. Galante,
Mr, Glasgow nroved for approval of the Texaco, Inc, proposed signage as
requested, Mr, Tut-ton second the motion, The motion was defeated with
Mr. Glasgow and Mr, Fulton voting in favor, and Mr. Eslick, Ms, Ericsson,
and Chairman Hutchins voting against the motion,
Following further discussion, Mk, Eslick moved to table consideration
to the meeting of April 2, 1984. Mr. Glasgow seconded the motion, and
it was approved unanimously,
A sign variance application by Robert W. Chiztnn requestingapproval of
canopyAllsignage tor the "kids for Sure and Sportswear )or Her store at
.40 " Avenue.
Mr, Galante presented the staff report. The application is for a
variance to the 8" height requirement for lettering on the canopy. The
applicant is requesting r�r-6". Staff recommended approval of the variance
request. He passed photographs of the signage on the canppy (Exhibit E)
to the Board for review.
No one spoke for or against the proposal, and Chairman Hutchins closed the
public hearing for Board deliberation.
Following discussion, Mr, Eslick moved for approval of the variance
request for "kids for Sure and Sportswear for Ier'; The motion was
seconded by Ms. Ericsson, and Qassed unaniurously,
1 DR 5-84 A request by,Al Kenny and Les Schwab Tire Center, Inc. for
ap prFnalto construct a building for the sale o vehicle equipment and
for vehicle service,
Mr. Galante reported that the application was incomplete, and recommenced
the Board table action on the application to the April 2, 1984 meeting.
Mr. Eslick moved to table consideration of ER 5-84 to the April 2, 1984
meeting, Ms, Ericsson seconded the notion, and it passed unanimously.
ill DR 6-84 - Mr. Galante reported that the application had been withdrawn.
Development REview Board Minutes
Msch 19, 1984
Page Three
DR 2-84 - A request by Terra Northwest Industries for approval of a
twelve unit condominium project (three 'our-plex buildji�ngs) located at the
northeast intersection of Laurel street and McVey Avenue,
Mr. Miniszewski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
with eight conditions, which were revised slightly from the original
staff report.
Terry Goldbeck, 105 Kingsgate, take Oswego, spoke on behalf of the
application. He said the amount o evidence submitted with the appli-
cation has been accumulated through a Plan amendment application, a zone
change application, and meeting with the Conservancy Conn ission, Be
submitted additional information, which was requested by st:ra.t"i: att a
meeting the previous week (Exhibit J, rendering and elevations; Exhibit K,
By-Laws pr.,:oposed for the homeowner's association; Exhibit L, a letter
frog Art Douglas Wallower; and Exhibit M, a proposed nonremonstrance
agreement for road improve ents). He addressed each of staff's recommendations,
Tnany of which requested submission of items necessary to satisfy conditions
of the Planning Commission approvals,
Bob Vanderworth, architect, 13248 NW Old German Town Road, Portland,
spoke in behalf of the application. He discusses the u lding charac-
teristics, orientation, and design, He discussed the landscaping and
screening of buildings from McVey and surrounding residential areas, In
response to a question from Mr. Eslick, he said the siding would be
411 beveled cedar, stained in natural wood tones.
No one spoke in opposition, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public
hearing for Board deliberation. Following discussion, Mr, )slick moved
for approval of DR 2-84 with the following conditions;
1. That evidence be submitted to the Planning Department showing
how the following will be done to the satisfaction of staff;
a. That lighting at the parking lot and the pedestrian walkway
in the old Lee Street right-of-way be provided to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Department,
b. That dogs, the parking of boats, trailers, and non-functioning
cars will be prohibited at the subject premises through
deed restrictions,
c. That a homeowner's association will provide for the maintenance
of landscaping on the eastern half of the Lee Street right-of-
way, and indicate under what conditions the responsibility will
terminate.
d. That stormwater will be managed on the site to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Department.
e,; That the applicant retain an arborist, and a report be
lip submitted to staff specifying tree protection measures and
an ongoing maintenance schedule for the Oregon white oak
trees on the site,
2. That the applicant provide for the road construction improvements
Development Review Board Minutes
March 19, 1984
Page Four
(including a culvert) for the realignment of Laurel Street
to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department,
3. That the applicant sign a nonrempnstrance agreement stating that
the owner(s) of the subject property will not remonstrate against
any road n rovetnent proposals along McVey Avenue and Laurel Street,
4, The applicant dedicate the land shown on the attached survey,
Exhibit H, to the City for the McVey right-of-way widening and
the provision of intersection irtprovezts.
5, That extruded curbing and stormwater catch basin be provided in
the parking lot to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department.
6, That the applicant provide For the construction of a walkway ha
the 20' accessway easement to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Department.
7. That a tree cutting plan be submitted to the satisfaction of staff,.
8. Conditions 3, 4, 5, and 7 be accomplished by the applicant
before the submission of building permits to the Building
Department,
9. Engineering plans, a construction schedule, and any required
IIIfinancial guarantee for the Laurel Street realignment, and the
provision of the Lee Street right-of-way sidewalk be submitted
before building occupancy permits are issued,
The motion was seconded by Ms Ericsson, and passed unanimously,
Chairman Hutchins declared a ten minute recess, The meeting reconvened
at 958 p.m.
DR 3-84 A request by American States Insurance Company for appravual of
a 58,700 square foot office building and a minor partition on a parcel
of land located on the north side of Kruse Way near Interstate 5.
Mr. Galante presented the staff report. Be said that this presentation
would cover issues which addressed. DR 4-84 as well as this application,
Mason Frank, Managing Partner of Birtcher, Frank, McDonald, 11400 SE 6th
greet Bellevue, Washington, spoke in behalf of the application, He
aescribed the proposed project, and gave the background of its conception.
Nawzad Othman CrAK�-he. 15110 SW Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego,
addressed the tbi.story of the project, and the open space requirements it
must meet to comply with the Comprehensive Plan, He said the schedule
of construction was to begin construction in June, 1984 and completion
by June, 1985.
411 Dick Spies, BOORA Architects, 733 NW 20th Avenue, Portland, discussed
p
the orientation of the site, and tie desge layout of
J
Development Review Board Minutes
March 19, 1984
Page Five
Amh the buildings on the site. He said the building height will allow
freeway exposure, and views from higher floors, as well as meeting
space requirements far the tenants of the buildings,
Linda Potter, OTAK, Inc., landscape architect, discussed landscaping
plans for the site, the use of native plantings to compliment those
plants found in the open space portions of the site, and the applicants
plans to meet the concerns raised by the Conservancy Commission. She
submitted photographs of the existing t* acre open space portion and
pictures of plantings which would be used in landscaping (Exhibits Iviand N) ,
Nawzad Othman answered questions for Mr, Eslick_pertaining to differences
in design on several, maps. He said all the maps recently submitted are
consistent and are the ones represented in the Board's packet,
Ir. Galante noted that all the above testimony related to both DR 3-84
and DR 4-84,
Larry Weibel, American States Insurance Company spoke, He said his
company is presently in Portland in leased quarters, and looks forward
to having their own building.
Michael Gou:laf, architect, Ft. Wayne,, Indiana, discussed the American
States Insurance building design,
Nawzad Othman discussed the conditions for approval recommended by
41, staff, and°the applicant's position on theist,
No one spoke in opposition, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public
hearing for Board deliberation, The Board went through, the conditions
with Mr. Galante, and determined which were necessary, Two conditions
were eliminated. because the Board felt adequate evidence had been
presented.; 1) The requirement to eliminate the use of Incense Cedar
proposed for a portion of the median strip of Kruse. Oaks Blvd, 2) the
requirement that the applicant demonstrate that no traffic conflicts
which would require revised site design exist at the access to the
restaurant site.
Following further discussion, Mr, Fslick rooved ;for approval of DR 3-84
with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant complete street improvements including street
lighting, and dedicate necessary right-of-way and easements, for
streets, sidewalks, and utilities to the saitsfaction of the
Public Works Director (dedication and easements not to exceed
that required for approved facilities),
2. That Cavanants, Conditions, and Restrictions be provided as
required by ODPS 1-82 (Findings, 1--82-102),
3, That no building permits be issued until it is deinanstrated
41) that the building height complies with applicable zoning code
Provisions.
Development Review Board Minutes
March 19, 1984
Page Six
glik 4. That construction measures to protect trees and other existing
Vir vegetation be provided to the satisfaction of staff.
5, That street lighting be finalived to the satisfaction of
the Public Works Director,
b, That the proposed textured suri:ace of streets and its installation
specifications be provided to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Director,
7. That a soils report prepared, by a soils engineer or engineering
v geologist be provided to issulatrate the suitability of the
site for the proposed construction.
8. That construction measures to prevent erosion be provided for
the open spaceistormwater detention areas to the satisfaction
of staff,
9, That drainage plans be finalized to provide access for maintenance,
10, That finalized unified signage plans be submitted to the
satisfaction of staff,
11. That irrigation plans be provided prior to the issuance of
building permits,
410 12. That the manor partition survey be registered at the County
Surveyor's Office, and the descriptions of the lot shown on a
legal instrument` for title transfer be recorded at the County
Recorder's Office,
13. That evidence of the above survey registration and legal instru-
ment recordation; be provided to the City Planning Department
within a week after execution.
14. That signage be eliminated from the building wall, or that
wall signage meeting code provisions be submitted for staff
review.
Eslick also recommended that the record reflect that the Board
agreed that the street lighting proposed by the applicant was acceptable
to them.
Mr. Glasgow seconded the notion, and it passed unaftimDusly.
DR 4-84 A request by B:Lrtcher, McDonald, Frank Properties for approval
of a 100,000 square foot office building on a site located on the north
side of Kruse Way near Interstate 5,
Mr. Galante presented the staff report, All evidence pertaining to this
hearing which was heard in the hearing for DR 3-84 was incorporated, into
1111 DR 4-84. Be went through conditions recommended by staff for approval.
,� j
Development Review Board Minutes
March 19, 1984
Page Seven
Dick Spies, architect, spoke in behalf of the application, He discussed
the design of the building, and the materials and colors planned, He
explained the relationship of this building to other structures planned
for this site now and in the future, He answered questions from Board
manbers
No one spoke in opposition, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public
hearing for Board deliberation. Following discussion, rtr, iaslick mrved
for approval of DR 4-84 with the following conditions;
1, That the applicant complete street improvements including street
lighting, and dedicate necessary right-of-way and easements for
streets, sidewalks, and utilities to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director. (dedication and easements not to exceed
that required for approved facilities) ,
2. That Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions be provided as
required by ODDS 1-82 (Findings 1-82-102).
3. That no building permits be issued until it is deiii ustrated
that the 68'6" high building comRlies with applicable zoning
code provisions.
4. That construction measures to protect trees and other existing
vegetation be provided to the satisfaction of staff,
410
5. That street lighting be finalized to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director,
6. That the proposed textured surface of streets and its installation
specifications be provided to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Director.
7, That a soils report prepared by a soils engineer or engineering
geologist be provided to illustrate the suitability of the site
for the proposed construction,
8. That construction measures to prevent erosion be provided for
the open space/stormwater detention areas to the satisfaction
of staff.
9 That finalized unified signage plans be submitted to the
satisfaction of staff,
10. That irrigation plans be provided prior to the issuance of
building permits.
The Board also indicated their acceptance of the type of street lighting
planned by the applicant, recognizing that PGE at this time does not
accept this type of lighting,
All
ger Ms, Ericsson seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously,
'i
Development, Review Board Minutes /,'
March 19, 1984
Page Eight
0 OTHEI BUSINESS 'ind x1gs, Conclusions, and Order
The Board approved the signing of findings for DR 1.-84 with additions
I
to be made,by staff before the next meeting, The 'vote will be verified
at the next meeting because only three Board ucaiLers eligible to vote '
were present.
Chairman Hutchins reported on the presentation of the Board's Annual
Report to the City Council.,
ARIOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:35 p,m,
Respectfully Submitted,
'''' t4fac,, */46cr.,/iCC,,,`"?/C.,.
Itri.sti Hitchcock
Secretary
kh
i
I i
{tl'' I II
II 1 6 lI
h
0 `
I t � '"
5�11 {t 1 '1I
1,, 'i ,a
II r
�' 1
.\
I 1 �'
} '
i.
i
'y
t 7'
,
`.} �,7 j
t L, 1
II
fi
4
1 t ,illy j
IS }1
y \ r,
1� ,,
Via,
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
DE'VF . )H EI T REVIEW BOAB) MEETING
APRIL 2, 1984
The Development Review Board meeting was called to order by Chairman
Richard Hutchins at 7:36 p.m. Board members present were Chairman
Hutchins, Katherine Ericsson, John Fulton, Richard Eslick, Anthony
Wright, and John Glasgow. Lynn Takeuchi was excused. Staff present
were City Planner Bob Galante and Secretary Itristi Hitchcock. Ms.
Ericsson requested an excused absence for the April 16, 1984 meeting,
APPROVAL Or MINUTES
The approval of the March 5 minutes was verified by a second vote, with
Chairman Hutchins, Ms, Ericsson, Mr, Eslick, and Mr. Wright voting in
favor, and Mr. Fulton and Mr, Glasgow abstaining, Mr. Eslick moved
for approval of the minutes of March 19, 1984. Mr, Glasgow seconded the
motion, and it passed with Mr; Eslick, Mr. Glasgow, Ms, Ericsson, and
Chairman Hutchins voting in favor, Mr. Wright abstained,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A sign application by Leonard Reinecke for Texaco, Inc for a structure
Alb located at 209 "A" Avenue. This request was continued from the March 19
meeting,
I'h;-. Galante reported that 47,470(a) of the Sign Code was particularly
relevant to this application. He said that staff recomti nded approval
of the sign application as it conforms to all applicable criteria and
standards.
Mr. Eslick expressed concern that the Council's determination that this
was a wall sign and not a canopy sign would set a precedent for other
businesses requesting signs. He asked if the applicant had considered
other approaches to construction of the sign that were suggested at
the last meeting,
Leonard Reinecki, Ramsay Sign, representing Texaco, Inc. said that they
ware not considering other signs for this facility. In answer to a
question froGn Mr. Fulton, he said this is the smallest standard sign
that Texaco has for their stations.
Mr. Fulton expressed his support for the new sign which would improve
the site over the existing sign, Mr, Eslick. disagreed, He agreed that
the sign was aesthetically better, but felt neon (brightly lighted)
signs were not what Lake Oswego needs, and that if it were not backlit,
it would be. tnore acceptable, Mr, Glasgow said that one alternative
solution would be to manufacture a sign six inches scnal.ler to meet the
Code, however, the sign is within the limits of the Code, and it should
be approved. The Development Review Board's efforts should go into
adopting a new sign code, Mr, Eslick said this should not set a precedent
that all similar canopy signs are considered as wall signs.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 130ARD MEETING
APRIL 2, 1984
Page 2
Following further discussion, Mr, Glasgow nyaved that the Board accept the
sign application for the Texaco wall, signs; The grotion was seconded by
Mr. Fulton, and passed with Mr. Fulton, Mr, Glasgow, Ms, Ericsson, and
{ Chairman Hutchings voting in favor, Mr, Esltck voted against the motion,
DR 5-84 A continuation of a reguest by Al Kenney and Les Schwab Tire
Center Inc. for approval to constnact a building cm the property which
is located on the northwest side of Boons Ferry ad, near Pilkington-
Road,
Mr. Galante presented the staff report, _ He said that staff recommended
approval with conditions, He gave the Board Exhibits L and M for review
and stated that signage will meet vision clearance requirements, eliminating
the need for condition number tWo. He answered questions from Board
members regarding drainage on the site, drawing their attention to
Exhibit It.
Lanny Lyle, Vice President, Les Schwab Tire Centers, spoke in behalf of
the appl,icatTEWT. He said that conditions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and
` 12 are acceptable to them. He said that:
Condition 3, which required "split faced" concrete block was a
problem because they could not determine what this
was. They are not opposed to using a block which has
more design to it if it could be limited to use en the
, 410front of the building. The two side views would be
hidden by shrubbery and would not need a texture.
I Be said, that mechanical equipment on the roof of the
building actually looked better if not screened, and
sited ,An example in Oregon City. He said the unit was
painted the same color as the roof and is 4' x 3',
Condition 4, requiring parking stalls dimensioned to City Standards,
was not acceptable because their primary use for this
facility will be to service delivery vans and commercial,
vehicles, and they are generally longer than the 16 feet
required by the City of Lake Oswego. Mr. Lyle requested
that the Board approve the parking spaces as they have
them proposed. They would increase the number of small
car parking units if necessary, The felt the amount
of landscaping was more than adequate,
Condition 8, limiting fence height to 8' would not provide adequate
security. They have had tires stolen from lots with
both 6' and 8' fences, and requested they be allowed
a 10' fence. He answered questions from Board members,
No one spoke in opposition to the proposal, and 'Chain Hutchins closed
Amk
the Public hearing for Board deliberation. The Board discussed conditions
lip which{: they felt had been met, and those which should be modified. Mr.
Galante summarized the conditions outlined by the Board,
DEVETPMEVT REVIEW BOARD MEETING
APRIL 2, 1984
Page 3
411 In response to questioning by the Board, Albert Kenne Consulti k' ineer,
738 East Burnside, Portland, said that the-reason fort ►e reques or
textured concrete on only the front side of the building was that the smooth.
surfaced concrete was pore easily maintained,
Following further Board discussion, Mr. Eslick. maned for approval of
DR 5-84 with the following condit:sans
1, That a non-remonstrance agreement be signed by the applicant
for the planned street improvements on Boones Ferry Road,
2. That wall signage be illustrated in the plans
3 That building materials be specified, that concrete block
be of a "broken-faced" (split faced) type for at Least the
Boones Ferry Road frontage, and that screening of roof Xnotmted
mechanical equipment be illustrated in plans to the satisfaction
of staff,
4 That street trees be spaced 35` on center, and that a tree
cutting plan be submitted to the satisfaction of staff,
e bespaced5' center, that
t dbuffer on ert
i planted asa S. That Photinia p e ,
ivy (or other suitable groundcover) be planted in all areas not
planted with other materials, and that additional trees
(approximately two (2)) be planted at the rear to break up the
view of the roof for residential properties to the north.
6. That irrigation plans, designed to the standards of the Turf
Irrigation Manual be submitted prior to the issuance of building
permits.
7. That extruded concrete curbs be used in place of the asphaltic
rolled curbs proposed.
8. That final drainage plans and calculations be submitted to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
building permits.
9. That the lot line adjustment be registered at the County
Surveyor's Office, and that descriptions of the lot shown on a
legal instrument for title transfer be recorded at the County
Recorder's Office,
10. That evidence of the above registration and legal instrument
recordation he provided to the City Planning Department t within
a week after execution.
The motion was seconded by Mr, Wright, and passed tnuricausly,
--
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING
APRIL 2, 1984
Page 4
OTHER BUSINESS Findings, 'Conclusions, and Order
DR 1-84 - Mr, Eslick moved to sip41 the endings with, additions made
by staff as requested, The notion was seconded by Mr, Wright
and passed uananimously,
DR 2-84 = Following discussion, `Mr, Eslick moved to approve the signing
of the findings when corrected, The notion was seconded and
passed-umartimousl _(Changes made to condit±ons 1,, la, and 9.)
DR 3-84 - Mr.Es icfc moved to sign the findings Mr, Glasgow seconded
the motion, and it passed with Mr Eslick, Ms. Eri;csscn1, Mr.
Glasgow, Mr, Fulton, and Chairmen Hutchins voting in favor,
Mr. Wright abstained,
DR 4-84 - Mr. Eslick;moved to approve the signing of the findings with
one correction to the square footage of the buildap, Mr,
Fulton seconded the notion, and it passed with Mr. Eslick, Mr,
Fulton, Ms. Ericsson, Mr, Glasgow, and Chairman. Hutchins voting
in favor, and Mr. Wright abstaining,
FS T;CrION OF OFFICERS
Mr. Hutchins nominated Mr, Eslick for Vice,-Chairman, The nomination was
seconded by Mr. Glasgow, and Mr. Eslick was elected unaniMously.
0 COUNCIL AG1IONS
AATOURNME JT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Chairman
Hutchins at 9:14 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
' te.e.lef-'7V4,671-ilie.:-'1e*e.?"//,.--
:sti. Hitchcock
Secretary
r1W I
`
...,...
,,' . ,,,,
..,„.
6
1
. . ,
. ,
, .
. ..
. . .
.,
,,
I
�.
•
t
A pmr,
„„
CITY OF LAIC:; OSWEGO �'
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD r�TlrG
a
APRIL 16, 1984
The Development Review Board meeting was called to order by Chairman
Richard Hutchins at 7:35 p.m. Board members present were: Chairman
Hutchins, Richard Eslick, John Glasgow, Anthony Wright, John Fulton,
and Inn Takeuchi. Katherine Ericsson was excused, Staff present
were City Planners Gary Miniszewski and Bob Galante, Deputy City
Attorney Nark Pi.11iod, and secretary Kristi Hitchcock. ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minutes was delayed until later in the meeting. At that
time the minutes of April 2, 1984 were approved as written with
Chairman Hutchins, Richard Eslick, Anthony Wright, John allton, and
John Glasgow voting in favor; and, Lypn Takeuchi abstaining,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SD 6-84/VAR 5-84 A request by D4ght C, Minthorne for the approval of
a residential subdivision cons sting of six lots with an average s1ze
• of 9,200 square feet. In addition the applicant was requesting approval
of a variance to ithe Park and Oee► : Space Develo�t Code Standard
requi,r that 2 o the gro s area of a resi entiail development be
either reserved for open space use, or a fee equal to the assessed
value of the required land in open space be paid to the City,
Gary Miniszewski presented the staff report, Six lots are being
proposed at the corner of Lamont Way and Lakeview Boulevard. This is
an infill subdivision. The applicant plans to take access from Schalit
Way, which will be developed through a local LID. The variance is
requested,because of the cost the developer will incur for road
improvements. He would not have bad that cost if access had been
from Lament or Lakeview. The applicant stated that a lost lot or
payment of the open space fee added to his share of the LID costs would
be an economic hardship. Mr. Miniszewski went through the conditions of
approval recommended by staff. He answered questions from Board members,
Dori ht Minthorne, 425 SE Roy, Sherwood, spoke in behalf of the application,
He is the applicant and part owner of the project. He said that they
are not just participating in their portion of the LID, but the entire
in rove ents to Schalit, not those just along their property frontage,
They are taking access from Schalit at the request of the City. They
will build houses similar in size and design to those which exist in
the surrounding neighborhood. He answered questions from Board members
concerning the applicant's percentage of LID participation, the area
of the cul de sac, and removal of fill from the site.
- I
Development Review Board Meeting
April 16, 1984
Page 2
`j Opposition
Gerald trhaniperlain, Tax Lot 7140, said that he was not opposed to the
' subdivision, but was concerned with surface water drainage from proposed
three and four. fie submitted photographs of his lot showing ponding
problems (labelled Exhibit F) , He also expressed concern that the
natural, screening now existing would be removed, He asked where the
the storm drain line proposed to go through the utility easement from
the back of lot 3 and ending at the corner of his property would be
placed, and of what it consisted.
Carl New, 4868 Lakeview, around the corner from the subdivision, expressed
concerns regarding the location of the proposed pathway. Ifr said the
pathway should be moved to the southern edge of the development,
connecting front Way with Schalit. He asked the width of the back of
lot 1,
Jim Jamisont adjacent to proposed lot 1, listed his concerns ; 1) his
exi•
sting driveway is a few feet into proposed lot 1, hut he understands
the five foot road dedication will allow his driveway to remain;
2) drainage from lots 1-4; 3) continuation of the pathway where it
currently exists instead of the proposed lot location.
Tom Koor►z, 5225 Takeview, was concrned wth teir the.. tohe
Space Standard because open space could beusedneighborhood,
questioned wellslanned for drainage of the lots, He
also thought the pathwayshould bt located where it currently exists
the use of
near lot 1,
Rebuttal
Dwight Minthorne said that the location of the path had been recommended
by the Planning Department, and that the Police Department had requested
that the path be straight for public safety. He indicated that he
would be willing to put the path in the 10' utility easement along the
southern edge of the property. He explained the storm drain was 4"
in diameter along lot 1, and that the dry well was engineered by the
City Engineer and was temporary. The dry well is to be used as a
manhole once the sewer system is installed in this area. The date of
that installation is not yet determined. In response to a question
from Chairnm'kiutchins, Mr. Minthorn said that the 4" drain will drain to
Lamont from Lot 3, and that most lots will drain back toward Schalit Way,
In response to questions from Board members, 'Mr, Miniszewski said that
the pathway could be located in the utility easements He said that the
setback would not change for lot 1 adjacent to that easement if the
pathway were located there, as the setback is measured from the lot line.
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for
Board deliberation. The Board discussed the variance to the Parks and
Alk Open Space Standard, and whether the request met the criteria for a
variance. Following discussion, Mr. Eslick moved`e'-r denial of VAR 5-84,
Mr. Takeuchi seconded the motion, and it passed with Eslick, ,
Development REview Board' Meetin
April 16, 1984
1'age 3
411
Takeuchi, Mr'. Wright, and Chairman Hutchins in favor; Mr. k'ulton
opposed; and, Mr. Glasgow abstaining,
Following a discussion. . . proval of the
of conditions necessary for ap�
application, Mr. H slick moved for approval of. SD 6-84 with the
following conditions:
1. That owners of the subject property petition the City of
Take Oswego to segregate their sanitary sewer assessment ;
associated with LID 174. This condition be riet before the
final plat is signed by City officials.
2, That a soils report be submitted to the building official
addressing the adequacy of the fill material at the subject
site to support single family dwellings. The report be
prepared by a professional soils engineer as required by
Section 2905 of 'the Uniform' Building Code, That the applicant
f provide a revised final grading plan for all site preparation,
fill, and excavation for all sites for control of surface
water,
3. That Thunder Cloud Plum trees be planted along the Schalit
Way cul-de-sac abutting the proposed subdivision with average
32' spacing per Section 9.005 of the Development Code, This
conditions must be met before dwelling occupancy permits are
411 issued for proposed lots 1, 2, 4, and 5,
4. That the final plat have a clear notation indicating that access
to the proposed lots from Lamont Street and Lakeview Boulevard
is permanently restricted.
5. That a 10' strip of land along Lakeview Boulevard and a 5'
strip of land along Lament Street be dedicated to the City
of Lake Oswego, The above dedication be shown on the final
plat.
6. That owners of the subject property sign nonremanstrance
agreements stating that the owners of the property will not
rermnstrate against road improvement proposals along Lakeview
Boulevard or Lamont Street,
7. That the proposed 5' path connecting Schalit Way with Lamont
Avenue be constructed as part of the propose
d LID for the
Schalit Way improvement along the south property line of
lot 1, generally parallelling the 10' public easement along
the north/south line of lot 1, and there be modified to
connect to Lamont Way.
8. That the existing 15' sewer easement, the existing 10' water
easement, and proposed 7,5' easement along the south property
line of lot 1 be identified on the final plat as public
utility easements with their specific functions identified,
Development Review Board Meeting
April 16, 1984
Page 4
410
9. That the final plat clearly depict front, side, and rear yard
setback lines for each lot as per R,-7,5 Setback Standard
LOG 43,538,
10, That the design by the applicant for the grades and control
of surface and subsurface runoff water from the site be
provided to the satisfaction of staff,
The motion was seronded by Mr, Glasgow, and passed unan'inously.
Chairman Hutchins declared a five minute recess, The public hearings
were resumed at 9:29 p.m,
PD 1--84 - A request by Dennis Derby for approval of a Residential Planned
Development consisting of 45 lots in a Residential R_15 zone,
VAR 3-84 - A request for approval of a variance to the Transit Standard
which requires that a bard surfaced path be provided- to connect the
development to the nearest transit facility. The subject property is
20.E+3 acres and located south of Childs Road and east of Bryant Road,
Mr. Miniszewski presented the staff report, He gave the location of the
subdivision, and stated the major issues involved in the proposal;
Ask 1) the adequacy of Childs Road in its present condition to serve as
access to the proposed Planned Development; 2) the adequacy of the
Rivergrove water system to fully serve the proposed project; 5) the
adequacy of access to the flood plain area proposed for dedication to
the City for recreation use.
Mr. Miniszewski submitted four additional exhibits to the Board for
the record. Those exhibits were: 1) letter from Rivergrove Water
District (exhibit G) ; 2) second letter from Rivergrove Water District
(Exhibit I-I); letter stating proposed setbacks (Hxhibit 1) ; arid, 4)
tree location map.
Dennis Derby, 19697 River Run Drive spoke in behalf of the application.
He said the application was complete, and he would answer questions from
Board members. He agreed with the right of way dedication and Childs
Road improvements proposed by County staff, He said the park plan for
future improvements was not clear.
Rick Givens, Planning Consultant, 7451 Sod Coho Court, Tualatin, Suite
107, clarified their request, stating that the setbacks be R-10 zone
setbacks rather than the R-15 setbacks. He said the majority of lots
range from 9,600 to 12,000 square feet. He discussed the staff request
for a pimp station, and said that there was a piece of property which
was located west of their property through which they Would need an
easement. He suggested that they were not able to obtain an easement
across that intervening property, either of two methods should be used
to solve the need for the pump station; 1) halt the development of
111. the street 20 feet from the end of the street right-of-way and construct
the pub station in that area; or 2) a temporary easement on one of
Development Review Board Meeting
April 16, 1984
Page 5
411111
the two lots on Rivers Edge Drive, which would be vacated at such time
as the sanitary sewer is connected.
Mr. Givens said that a minimum 15' vehicular access to the flood plain
be used if the Parks Department does develop that area, He requested
that it not be tied specifically to a site plan, but be determined
when the property is surveyed. He answered questions from Board
members regarding the access and the pathway,
Bruce Whitner, Mt. Park, Chairman of the Parks & Rtecreation Commission,
said the Commission has two concerns 1) that they have access to the
property for vehicles; and, 2) there appears to be some language which
might restrict the use of the dedicated property (Staff Report, April
4, 1984 -", ., . proposed to be dedicated to the City will rewiin in its
natural state,") He would not like the dedicated land prohibited from
active recreational use,
Chairman Hutchins said that from the plan for the open space area, it
appeared there was an area to be left in its natural state along the
riverbank, and an area to be used by Parks and Recreation for an active
Park.
Polly Jones 2612 Rivendell Drive listing agent for River Run I, said
that she understood that, when all the parcels along the river were
available for park use, and funds were available, the City would
develop the area for active use, Until that time, she understood that
the City Maintained the flood plain area by periodic mewing.
GregWeston, 19681 River Run.Drive, engineer with Compass Engineering,
addressed the engineering aspects of building a road or pathway in
the location planned, He said the location would lend itself to a
pathway with switchbacks, but said it was not a good location for a
road because of the cuts and fills which would severely impact the bank,
He said there is a major access located in River Run I which is well
graded to allow for vehicular access, and that the access on the interve-
ning piece of property would be a much better location for art access
point to either parking facilities or for maintenance, etc.
Opposition
I Mindy Klann, 19565 SU 35th Court, listed her concerns; 1) access of
sewer lines for 35th Count for potential service of those existing
homes; 2) a fence being constructed, because the property being dedicated
for park use is a dissimilar use from the residential area, and tres-
spassing will occur onto private areas along the river; 3) the walkway
for the park---a 15' paved road would go directly to the east property
line, and her aunt's home would be five feet from the edge of the road
(She said at such time as the piece of property between the t1d03 subdivisions
should become available, the walkway could be vacated, and the. pathway
Mk moved to that piece of property); 4) removal of the filbert trees from
IMF the back portions of the proposed lots; 5) the R-15 zone setback
requirements should be used for the lots; 6)' development of a picnic
area by Parks & Recreation when no sewers are available for restroom
acilities. Ms. Klein said she would like to see the sewer lines,
Development Review Board
April 16, 1984
Page 6
III the fence, the abandonment of the walkway, and the removal of trees
be conditions of approval of the preliminary plat,
Bob Reynolds, Spousta Addition, which, borders the proposed project, said
his main concern is for increased traffic impact on Childs Road, He
said that taking 90 cars per hour from River Run T and adding another 90
cars per hour from proposed River Run ZT would equal 180 cars per hour
added to traffic on Childs during peak traffic hours, This would
create a safety hazard, 'plus the traffic would be again increased if
a park is constructed in that area,
Rebuttal
Mr. Derby said that he has discussed some things which,ntigtt be done to
minimize the interruption in the residents of 35th Court's lives while
the site is under development. He said he couldn't address the comments
regarding Childs Road because he doesn't have that information available.
The area is within the urban growth boundary and may be developed. The
road must be addressed by proper authorities, He discussed the park
access from his viewpoint of discussions with the Parks & Recreation
Department. He agreed that the easement should remain for pedestrain
traffic only. He answered questions from Board Members,
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for
410 Board deliberation,
Following discussion of the issues involved in the variance and planned
development, Mr. Takeuchi moved for approval of VAR 3-84, Mr. iJslick
seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Following further
discussion, Mr. Glasgow moved' for approval of PD 1-84 as per specifications
and conditions of staff, and as amended by the Board with the following
conditions:
1. That a 10' wide strip of land along Childs Road be dedicated
to the public for road right-of-way purposes.
2. That improvements be made to Childs Road where it abuts the
site. These improvements consist of additional surfacing,
curb, storm sewer facilities, and a five foot sidewalk. These
improvements, except for the sidewalk, be constructed to County
specifications. The construction of the above stated improvements
be completed, or financial guarantees be provided, before City
officials sign the final plat,
3. That it be demonstrated to the ''Development Review Board that
the River grove Water District system can provide water to the
site for domestic firefighting and the district is willing to
Provi
de th
at service,4. That an adequate right-of-way at least 15' wide for vehicular
access to the proposed flood plain area be provided to the
satisfaction of the Parks and Engineering Departments, and the
Development Review Board Meeting
April 16, 1984
Page 7
411
Conservancy admission as shown on Exhibit D of the staff report,
The above dedication be provided before the City Council
formally accepts the subject area by resolution, Access to be
adequately buffered from adjacent residential areas,
5. That the sanitary sewer system pub site be dedicated to the
public and accessible to vehicles if pumping is needed,
6 That sewer lines be provided to the subdivision's west boundary
and ready to be used for a gravity connection sihen the vacant
parcel to the west is developed,
7 That the stormwater outfall be established in such a way to
prevent soil erosion on the river, terrace bank; also, a Swale
meeting City drainage way construction standards be provided
on the floodplain to further drain, stormwater to the Tualatin
RRiver.
li 8, That a soils report prepared by a professional soils engineer
be submitted addressing the adequacy of the soils found at the
site to support single fancily dwellings. This condition be
net before the final plat is signed by City officials,
III 9. That a street tree planting plan and a tree cutting plan be
submitted to City planning staff for review and approval, The
approved plan be submitted before the final plat is signed or
any site clearing and grading is done, whichever action occurs
first.
10. That construction drawings be provided showing how the site will
be fenced as indicated on page 5 of the staff report, The above
drawings be submitted to staff for review and approval before
the final plat is signed by City officials,
11. That the final plat clearly depict fronts side, and rear yard
setback lines for each lot as per R-10 Setback Standard
Lt)C 48.215(1). Also, the 100 year regulatory flood elevation be
shown as noted on the final plat.
12. That the applicant prepare and submit to the City Engineering
Department a plan-view street light plan that conforms with
City standards. This condition be net before the final plat is
signed by City officials.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Fulton and passed with Mr. Wright, Mr.
Takeuchi, Mr. Glasgow, Mr. Fulton, and Chairman tutchins voting La favor,
Mr. Eslick abstained,
Chairman Hutchins declared a five minute recess, The public hearings
glIF resumed at 11:25 p,m.
_._ { ,
Development Review Board Meeting
April 16,, 1984
Page 8
410 PD 2-84 - A request by Deliaas and Associates, Inc, for a proval of a
soar oriented Residential Planner developmet, consisting of 10 lots in a
residential R-15 zone district. In addition, the applicant requested
approval of VAR 4-S4, a variance to the Transit Standard which, requires
that a hard surfaced path be provided to connect the development to the
nearest transit facility. The property is located west of Oak Knoll
Court subdivision, and south of Sunndt Drive,
Mr. Miniszewski presented the staff report, saying that the staff recom-
mendations had been revised per the uomotandum distributed to the Board,
He discussoci concerns of planning staff regarding the proposal, and the
variance to the transit standard requested by the applicant (see staff
report) ,
Marlin t'eH-as, DeHaas Associates, Inc. Spoke in behalf of the application,
He gave ,?z grief history of the site and proposed project,
Ron Ziegler, 18507 S4 Bryant Road, gave a slide presentation showing the
quality of the homes that will be built on the sites,
Mr. Aeneas addressed the conditions recommended by staff. Be agreed
with all conditions except condition 1, which he would like modified to
show setback lines for lots 3,4,5, and 6 as per drawings submitted
(Exhibit R) lie indicated that 20% of the open space has been put on
All private lots in the development, He was under the ingression this could
low be done if certain criteria such as view easements, cross easements, or
deed restrictions were met. They will, adhere to those criteria because
they would like that 20% to remain in open space on private land.
It. DeHcas said their proposed setback lines are illustrated on the colored,
map (Exhibit R) , They would agree with staff"s recommended setback line,
but would like it revised to be the blue line they propose, The gap ,
submitted (Exhibit fit) included the deck overhang area. Mr. DeHaas answered
questions from Board tix- ers,
Gary Peterson, 3436 NE 78th Avenue, Portland, geologist, discussed the
geoteckmical aspects of the project, He said that the sites would
require foundations which were anchored into the rock base, and that
he would be doing further geological studies of the individual lots
before buildings are constructed.
In answer to a question from Mr. Wright, Ron Ziegler said that lot
number 2 was the only lot which would not require further study because
that site is basically flat,
Wilford Bloom, 21 Sod Hilshire, Lake Oswego, one of the builders planning
to build homes in the project, spoke in favor of the application.
Stan Casevale, 25035 SW Mountain Road, Stafford, a builder for the
Amk developers, spoke in favor of the application.
rk" , +Rwyir
��_� d�'� '� Gyp °' �'"';,r•
j t S �ik � u •� 1'' ,� 1v i
Development Review Board Feting
April 16, 1984
Page 9
4110
Opposition
Mike McCutty, President of the Lake Corporation, had the following
concerns: 1) they received notice of tie hearing April 11., which did
not give them an opportunity to review the staff report adequately;
2) open space referred to in the staff report may be ambiguous as to
whether open to the public or just property owners in the development-
they would be opposed to any public access to the lake; 3) plans for lake
access that involves stairways, switchbacks, or boat docks---they would
like the opportunity to approve any of these planned facilities; 4) the
submerged land being donated in the open space complia me nce et;tng the
criteria of open space; and, 5) whether or not the developer has the
power to grant lake access and lake privileges,
Mr. /4cCutty stressed that the Lake Oswego Corporation is not opposed
to the application, but would like the concerns addressed, He also said
an additional concern was with silting which might occur during construction,
and requested that the City nrnitor this so the lake is not polluted
during construction, In response to a question from Chairman Hutchins, he
said that the Lake Corporation has jursidicti.on over land underwater
even though in some cases the land is privately owned, He was not sure
p Y'
how the property lines in this project were drawn,
• William McDonald, 2042 SW Sumu.t Drive, said he was not in opposition to
€E pro ct, but had concerns he would like addressed, He said that
he had not received notice until late, He was concerned regarding the
ownership of underwatery property proposed to be dedicated as open space. ,
He does not want public access directly in front of his property for
active recreational use. He located his property on the map for the
Board.
It was determined that the notices were mailed on April 5, 1984,
Rebuttal
Mr. Delaas addressed questions raised by Mr, Fisher (who was not able
to stay for the entire hearing) and W. McDonald, He said that the
devlopers are willing to stipulate that they will not build any boating
facilities in open space area. They will not interfere with Mr. Fisher
or Mr, McDonald`s access in any way.
In response to concerns raised by Mr, ?ucCutty, he said the intent of the
open space was that it be, open to owners in the subdivision, not the
general public. He said that they would work with the Lake Corporation
regarding anything done on the lake such as boat docks or stairways, and
that for such facilities permits would be needed from both the City and
the Lake Corporation, The developers %'ill do everything possible to
prevent pollution of the lake during construction, They plan to put in
a pollution control manhole,
In response to questioning by Mr, Eslick, Mr. Miniszewski clarified the
difference between public and private open space,
fl
iwu
•* a 'l r(Ab ,a,,�y_r^ 1 � c#A, a �e41;„'u f�4AI,, f7C rtv iy' Nile%":-TV Wfz► `?'rclr-
Development Review Board Meeting
April 16, 1984
Page 10
411111 No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for
Board deliberation,
Mr, Miniszewski said that as a part of condition 6 recommended by staff,
the grading plan would include erosion control measures during all phases
of site development. Condition 8 also addresses erosion control,
The Board discussed open space, They were particularly concerned with
open space located under water, and that the privately owned open space
would have access by all homeowners in the subdivision,
Chairman Hutchins asked staff if the setback line proposed by the
applicant was acceptable, Mr, Miniszewski answered affth ttively, He
said staff would rather have deck setbacks and structure setbacks than
have the rear property line relocated,
Following further discussion, Mk'. Eslick moved to approve PD 2-84 with the
recaMmendations of staff:
1. That the 6,890 square feet in general open space be included
as "open space", and the rear yard lines of lots 3,4,5, and 6 be
located to the north as per Exhibit R,
2. That the final plat clearly depict front, side, and rear yard'
setbacks as indicated on Exhibit G and adjusted as per Exhibit
R (blue and red deck lines) .
3. That the final plat clearly depict south building lines for all
Proposed lots so that solar exposure is optimized for dwellings
on all the lots as required by site design, criteria f and g
of the Development Code Standard 21,020
4. That the proposed Declaration of Reservations, Restrictions, and
Covenants (Exhibit P) include the folloudng restrictions and
thereby meet the intent of the following Residential Energy
Conservation Incentives:
a. Require walls on north sides of dwellings on sloped
terrain have 1/4 less height than walls on south sides,
b. The long axis (side) of dwellings be oriented within 20
degrees of true south or high use living areas be oriented
within 20 degrees of true south.
Revisions to the Restrictions and Covenants incorporating the
above building design and siting provisions be done before the
final plat is signed by City officials, Review of building
permits for the subject lots will be made by the Planning
Department to verify that the above restrictions are addressed
ma by the architect/construction contractor.
5 All structural design, space/water heating, and other incentives
as included on pages 4 and 5 of Exhibit libe provided in all
residential structures through the Declaration of Reservations,
Restrictions, and Covenants methhnimu (Exhibit P) .
Development Review Board Meeting
April 16, 1984
Page 11
Revisions to the Restrictions and Covenants incorporating the
above referenced structural provisions be done before the final
plat is signed by City officials, Review of building permits
for the subject `lots will be made by the Planning Department to
verify that the above restrictions ate addressed by the architect/
construction contractor.
6, That a grading plan be provided to the Engineering Department
before final plat submission showing that all standards under
Development Code Standard 16,005 will be met for street,
driveway, and other forms of constriction,
7. That a revised landscape plan be submitted for; street trees
on Oswego Court; a revised planting ,scheme at the west side of
the project entrance, with identification of vegetation to be
provided at cut and fill slopes along Oswego Shore Court. The
developer must provide a guarantee that the above vegetation and
landscaping will be provided before the final plat is approved.
8. That engineering drawings be provided showing profile views of
the proposed stormdrain system, Also, riprap be provided at
the stormwater outlet or it be shown why soil erosion will not
occur without riprap.
III 9. That engineering drawings be provided depicting location of
streetlight posts within the cross sections of both Summit
Drive and Oswego Shore Court before final plat approval,
10. That improvements be made to the south side of Summit Drive
. and the provision
t etsurfacingc h
additional
that include a d
of street lights. Engineering plans and a construction schedule
for the street improvements be submitted to and approved by the
City Engineering Department before the final plat is signed by
City officials.
11. That site specific foundation investigations be conducted by an
Engineering Geologist for construction proposals on lots 4,5,
6, and the open space tract (for the walkway) as per the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Report (Exhibit I, pages
3 and 4). That the pouring of footings and the excavation
exposed be inspected by a Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist,
12. That the construction of the proposed walkway from Oswego Shore
Court to the Lakeshore be constructed before an occupancy permit
is issued for the first dwelling constructed in the Planned
Development,
13. That no construction or development will happen on the open
space under the water on lots number 1500 or 3000. That
41, owners of those lots are not restricted from that property.
14. That all boat docks, boat houses, any type of construction
of stairways, etc. will be coordinated with the Lake Corporation,
E-,
Development Review Board
April 16, 1934
Page 12
411 The notion was seconded by Mr, Takeudhi, Following discussion, the
motion passed with Mr. Eslick, Mr. Takeuchi, Mr, Glasgow, Mr. Fulton,
and Mr. Wright voting in favor. Chairman Hutchins voted against the
notion. The Board asked that findings come back with exact setback
and rear yard lines defined,
Mr. Takeuchi moved for approval of VAR 4-84, Mr, Eslick seconded the
notion, and it passed unanimously,
OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions, and Order and Yanutes
Eslick, moved for approval of the minutes of April 2, 1984, The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fulton and approved with Chairman Hutchins,
Mr. Wright, Mr. Wright, Hr, Fulton, Mr Glasgow, and Mr. Eslick voting
in favor, Mr. Takeuchi abstained.
DR 5-84 - Al Kenney and Les Schwab Tire Center, Inc. - The findings
were approved for signature.
Texaco, Inc,- Sign application The findings were approved for signature
as amended
ADJOURCITEITE
(I) There being no further business, the Board was adjourned by Chairman
Hutchins at 1:25 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted
=
/I4e:&
Kristi Hitchcock,
Secretary
410
}
II
I
I
•
��4s pY I
da:p'F 6, �Ia.,,'�S'", a�C.. `�35: .� Ys .1 �» ,, +�r,��+v� .�r .P t
CITY OF tAKE OSWEGO r r , • 1 �I
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING I I Ire
HAY 7, 1984
The Development Review Board meeting was called to order by Chairman
Richard Hutchins at 7:34 p,m, Board members present were Chairman
Hutchins, John Glasgow, Lynn Takeuchi, John Fulton, Anthony Wright; and
Katherine Ericsson. Richard Esliek was excused, Staf:.th present were
City Planners Gary Mi.niszewski and Stan Tidman, Deputy City Attorney
Mark Pilliod, and Secretary kristi Hitchcock,
APPROVAL OF MINUTE,
11 Approval of minutes was delayed until, after the public hearings, when
they were approved as amended with Mr. Takeuchi moving ,for approval. and
Wright,Mr,I�ulton seconded the oration, lam, Takeuchi, T�r. ,+Iif-, Mr, G1as�,
,oc1, and.
Chairman Hutchins voted in favor of approval, Ms, Ericsson abstained,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Marlin DeHaas 1425 Cherry Crest Drive,. Lake 0sweico, speaking on behalf
a the Lakeview Realty Group, requesterthat when the findings for the
public hearing PD 2-84/VAR4-84 held April 16 were discussed the Board
consider the following;
dii 1. That the minutes and findings reflect that the land which the
developer agreed not to build on did not include the entire
private open space parcel underwater, but only the area
designated private park land "underwater" in front of lots 1500
and 3000.
2. That they not be required to show rear yard setbacks and south
building lines on the hardboard plat, but he allowed to submit
a site plan on a transparency which would be reproducible.
3, A larger version of Exhibit R, showing more clearly the setback
and lot lines (labelled Exhibit S)
The Board agreed to allow the use of Exhibit S in their consideration of
the findings.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PD 3-84/VAR 10-84 A r uest b Ver dill for approval of a two-lot
?lanne ve opment in an ,5 zone, The location for this requested
action is 2943 Lakeview Boulevard;
Mr, Tidman reported,he had received a letter from Mr and Mrs, Fogdall
(labelled Exhibit T) requesting that the hearing be continued to a lacer
date so they would have more time to prepare, Staff suggested the hearing
be continued to June 4, 1987 to give the applicant more time for preparation.
Development Review Board i`Ieeting
May 7, 1984
Page 2
Mr, Wright moved that PD 3-84 and VAR 1.0-84 be moved for consideration to
the June 4, 1984 mceting„ Ms. Bricsson seconded the motion, and it passed
unanimously.
SD 2-84/VAR 2-84 - An appeal by John find =Dorothy Weisser.:o.0 a staff
approval of a Lot Line Adjustment and Class T Variance, The appeal asks
to amend Condition No, 5. The location for the al5i5TIZation is 152$ Mhple
Street,
Mr. Tillman reported that the appeal asks to amend Condition No, 5 of
staff's approval of a lot line adjustment and Class x variance, He '
read staff's wording of Condition No. 5 (Exhibit IIT.) and also the
requested wording by the appellant (Exhibit AA) ,
Mr, Tidmar said this is a minor develotm�ent, not a ma j or develop .x:nt
proposal requiring major street ianpravernents, Staff requested that the
Development Review Board uphold staff's decision to approve the Lot Line
Adjustment and Class 1 variance with Condition No, 5 as it is written,
John Weisser submitted a prepared list of his reasons for: appealing
staZf''s decision, and an area print depicting those poin►-s he will
address (labelled Eshibit EE), He stated he and his wile are not
opposed to the development of Lot 1, but have major concerns with ground
water and storm drainage, They are belar the level of Lot 1, and the
runoff will flow directly onto their property. He felt that staff's
condition No. 5 did not adequately address the water problem, and thus has
appealed their decision, requesting rewording of that condition, They
are requesting that the drainage system from Lot 1 be designed to
convey ground water runoff into a storm drain adjacent to the northwest
corner of the property, and that the developer widen 'Maple Street and
extend the curbline along the south side of the street. Mr, Wteisser said
the water runoff also causes silting which could block the stoat sewers,
and will be extremely dangerous under icy conditions.
Daniel Scott,, owner of the property, read a prepared statement by himself
and'his wife, Lie passed copies to the Board (labelled Exhibit FF) ,
Street improvements would be expensive and would cause a financial hard
ship for them, They feel, due to the topography of the site, that
groundwater runoff would be minimal. Control of groundwater runoff can
be better taken care of at the time the property fronting Ash Street is
developed.
Mt. Weisser said in rebuttal that the area drainage should be kept to the
sane levels as before the development of Mr, Scott's property, and now was
the best time to address the problem,
No one else spoke, and Chairman Itttchins closed the public hearing for
Board deliberation. Mr, Wright commented that he lived on Maple Street,
and that the water runoff problem was serious. He felt staff had not
adequately addressed the drainage problem, and that Condition No, 5 should
be reworded,
Development Review Board Meeting
stay 7, 1984
Page 3
41/ Chairman Hutshins asked staff if the idea of using the existing, storm
drain had been considered, Mr. Tictron said engineering staff reviewed
the drainage issue, and may have considered use of the existing stQKin
•
drain. However, this alternative wars not addressed in any written
comments.
Mk Wight said there were two alternatives to consider 1) to direct
the water to the storm sewer which is currently unused, or, 2) add a
curb and regr'ade the street to direct the water to the curb along the
south side of the street to the catch basin,
Following further discussion, Mr, Wright moved to partially uphold the
appeal of SD 2-84/VAR 2,-84 with the modification to Condition No, 5.
5 The Lot 1 driveway and site drainage system shall be approved
during building permit review by City iangineering staff,
Driveway design should divert runoff west Co the gutter along
the south side of Maple Street, or into the storm sewer
adjacent to the property,
The Potion was seconded by Mr, Takeuchi, and passed with. Mr, Wright,
Mr, Takeuchi, Ms. Ericsson, Mr. Glasgow, and Mr, Fulton voting in favor
and Chairman Hutchins opposed.
gib VAR 9-84 - A request by Gary Silver or a - royal of a variance to side
and rear and setback re uirements a ica,le to the coriStruction of a
resideence. Z he setback requirement -or the side yard along South- Shore
Boulevard is 30 feet, the rear yard is 25 feet, and the southerly side
yard is five feet, The subject property is An irregularly shaped lot
at the corner of South Shore 13oulevard and Cedar Road,
Mr, Mtniszewski presented the staff report. He said variances were
requested for 10 feet of dwelling intrusion into the 30 foot north
side yard; five feet of deck intrusion into the 25 foot rear yard; and,
a two foot intrusion of a deck into the southern five foot side yard!
Staff recommended approval of all three setbacks, The variance along
South Shore has been reootmrended for approval because engineering staff
have indicated that there would be no conflict with future street right
of-way widening and street improvements. A condition requiring a
nonrenonstrance agreement by the applicant for any road improvements
along South Shore Boulevard was reeonmended.
The applicant was not present to speak for the application,
'lheodure Lachman, 16984 SW Alder Circle, said he was concerned about
increased traffic noise because of this structure, and was concerned
that if the variances were approved a precedent would be set for other
vacant hots requesting intrusion into setbacks. lle submitted a letter
fran himself and his wife regarding those concerns (labelled Exhibit S)
Development Review Board Meeting
May 7, 1984
page /1.
410 Chairman Hutchins told Mr. Lachman that each variance request was considered
separately, and that approval of variances on one proparly did not affect
how the DRB would consider variances on other properties
Mr. Miniszewski read a letter from Jim Flemming, the adjacent property
owner, in support of the application (Exhibit F) , Mr, 1 lolning supported
the variance request because it would provide a buffer, for, traffic noise.
Ion Butler, architect for the roperty owners, having waist ntrlved at
the hearing, spoke in behalf of the application, He said a "Stop Work"
order had been issued on this property because the City hnd determined
that variances were necessary after building permits had boon issued,
Be answered questions from Board members, saying that l..f the width of
the property were decreased by 10 feet along the north p'roporty line,
a car could still he parked on the premises.
No one else spore, and Chai7nk'n1 Hutchins closed the public hearing for
Beard deliberation. Following discussion of the varianco, criteria having
been met, Mr. Wright moved for approval of VAR 9-84 subject to the
following condition:
1. That the applicant sign a non emanstrance statement agreeing
that they will, not remonstrate against any road improvements
along South Shore Boulevard.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Glasgow, and passed with Mr, Wright, N .
Glasgow, Mr, Fulton, and chairman Hutchins voting in .favor y Mr, Takeuchi
voting against the motion! and, Ms. Ericsson abstaining,
VAR 6-84 - A Class 11 Variance application to reduce the required 25-foot
rear ,yard setback to two (2) feet to allow a water level deck and to
reduce the required 25-foot rear yard to 17 feet to allow a deck above
an enclosed boathouse. The location for these requested. actions is 1445 Oak
Terrace (Lot 5, Robinson's Point Subdivision)
Mr; Ticl<tian presented the staff report. The applicant is making two
variance requests, request (A) reducing the rear yard setback to two (2)
feet, and (B) reducing the rear yard setback to 17 feet to allow a deck
above an enclosed boathouse. Staff believed the applicant had not clearly
established justification for request (A) because the request has not been
shown to prevent an unnecessary hardship nor is the minimum variance
necessary, Staff recommended denial of request (A) , Staff recommended
approval of request (B) because it will not increase the structure's
intrusion into the rear yard setback. Staff recommended two conditions
to the approval for request (B) .
Ted Argo, Olson-Argo Architects Durham, spoke in behalf of the application
tie discussed the topography of the lot, its relationship to the design of
the structure, and the subsequent variance requests. He said the house
was designed for an elderly couple, and every effort had been made to not
lir add level changes. The deck at water level is in a sheltered cove,
and will not interfere With adjacent properties on the water, Hle answered
questions for Board lmembers, and said they will agree to staff's conditions.
Development Review Board Meeting;
May 7, 1984
Page
• Jerry Veenker, Holman Co an responsible for construction, addressed
the exist 'h1g conditions o f t 1e lot, He answered questions for Board
members
No one spoke in opposition, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public bearing
for Board deliberation,
Following discussion, in which the :Board reached a consensus that hardship
had been shaven by topographical constraints and that the property owners
should have the same advantage of rear yard use as the neighbors, Mr,
Wright roved for approval of VAR 6-84 as per the appli,catnl,.!fl requests
(A) and (B), subject to the following conditions;
1, The deck over the boathouse shall not project or overhang the
boathouse, therefore not allowing the deck to intrude a greater
distance into the required roar yard,
2, Deck lighting shall be designed and 'constructed to minimize
glare and brightness on adjacent properties on the lake,
r11hte motion was seconded by Ms, Fricsson, and passed with Chai;xman Hutchins,
Mr, Wright, Ms, Ericsson, Mr Ciasgow, and Mr Fulton voting in favor, and
Mr, Takeuchi opposed
()TIER BUSINESS
Chairman Hutchins asked the status of the proposed sign ordinance, Ms,
Young, Planning Director, said the City Council will be holding a
workshop on the sign ordinance on May 29, 1984.
The minutes of the April 16, 1984 meeti.ng were approved as amended,
Findings, Conclusions, and Order
SD 6-84/VAR 5-84, Dwight Minthorne It was moved, seconded, and passed
arnimousl.y to approve signing of the findin ,s. Ms. Ericsson abstained.
PD i-84.VAR 3.84, Dennis Derby It was moved, seconded, and passed to
approve signing of the findings with the amendments made by .staff, Ms
Ericsson abstained.
PD 2-84/VAR. 4-84, Lakeview Realty - It was moved, seconded, and passed
to approve signing of the findings as amended, Ms, Ericsson abstained,
Chairman Hutchins asked staff to notify the City Council that he would be
interested in attending their upcoming parliamentary procedure workshop
AAToUt2NMF. 4T
ak There being no further business, Chaizrnan Hutchins adjourned the meeting
yr at 10:00 p.m
Respectfully 'S tted
2�r --
Kr st: Hitchcock, Secretary
,.
. , ,
•
I
t
•
CITY Of LAKE OSWEGO A';',1 n r j1+ . �. I
DEvELDPMP� 'rr RED ' BOARD MEETING ilo �'
MAY 21, 1984
The Development Review Board meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard
Hutchins at 7:33 p,m. Board nemi)ers present were Chairman Hutchins)
Richard Eslick, Katherine Ericsson, Anthony Wright, and John Glasgow,
John Fulton and Lynn Takeuchi were excused, Staff present were: Sandra
Young, Planning Director. City Planners, Bob Galante and Gary_M niszewski;
Deputy City Attorney, Mark Pil1iod; and, Secretary, Kristi Hitchcock.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Ms. Ericsson, seconded by Mr. Glasgow, and passed to
approve the tilinut.A. s of the May 7, 1984 meeting as written, Ms, Ericsson,
Mr. Glasgow, Mr. Wright, and Chairnnn Hutchins voted in favor of the
motion, and Mr, Eslick abstained,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
DR 11-84 - A :request by Dennis Derby to modify the River [dun II Planned
beveloprent, River' Run 11 Planned Dvvelopment was approved aElETRi April
fib, 1984 Development Review Board meeting with 45 lots. The applicant
has proposed a density increase of six lots at the northeast portion of
Alb the site, based on a recently amended procedure for the calculation of
1111. density.
Mr. Mtniszewski presented the staff report. He gave the history of the
project's prior applications -a Development, ieviec4 Board approval for 45
lots on April 16, 1934, and a Planning Commission denial of a requested
zone change from R-15 to R-10 on April 23, 1984, He said the modification
requested by the applicant is the splitt.ing of six lots in the northeast:
corner of the site to create 12 lots. This constitutes an additional six
lots. The modification request is based on the recent City Council passage
of an amendment to City Code allowing floodway to be used in the density
transfer calculations. That amendment will not be in effect until after
June 14. Any motion would have to include language which took note of the
effective date, of the amendment. Staff also asked that a condition be
placed on approval of the application stating that the owner of the site
be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of construction of
the canal trunkline, Mr, Miniszewski answered questions for Board members,
Es.sponents
Rick Givens Plannin Consultant, 7451 SW Coho Court #107, Tualatin
spoke in be aif o tle�pplicat1on, He said they have no objection to
the conditions recommended by staff for approval of the project, rn
response to a question fran Nr, Wright regarding the reason for location of
the density increase, Mr. Givens said this area was a transition from
Amw Childs 'Road,, and they would like to keep the smaller lots in one area of
lip the development,
Development Review Board Meeting
May 21, 1984
Page 2
` Chairman Hutchins asked the density of the area to the east of this
subdivision. He said ha understood the lot sizes must be at least 75%
of the adjacent zone. Mr. Miniszewski said that the same amendment which
would modify the density calculaticalta also amended the landscape, screening,
and buffering standard Co require that: with the Use of density transfers,
the proposed lots must be at least 75% of the size of the existing lot;
in the adjacent zone. Mr. Miniszewn':i said Exhibit 1) had the exact
wording reconn encled by the City Council,
Mr, Givens said : 1) because of the requirement that any development over
20 lots be developed as a planned development, some lots 'would be smaller.
than 15,000 square feet; 2) they would be willing to construct a fence
screening the adjoining properties from the higher density; 3) asked
that they be allowed to work with staff to nx cli.Cy the plat and continue
the hearing.
1`t , Eslick said he would like the record to rdi'lect the previous Development
Review Board recommendation involving modification to the right-of-way to
the lower area, and that it has not yet been shown on plans. Mr. Givens
said a meeting was scheduled for the following day .for design of that area.
Dennis Derby, applicant, 19697 River. Run Drive, said one of his concerns
is that tIose lots in �e adjacent development are are larger than they would
be under the zone at the time they were developed because that development
is not served by sewer. They are providing servers :for this development.
He said the 51 lots are needed to make an economically viable development,
He requested that if a replat is necessary they be allowed to world with
staff, and that it be expedited so they can go forward as soon as possible,
Opponents
Mindy Kiann, 19565 SW 35th Court, said she was not opposed to the request,
but was concerned, about the change in density, which would cause increased
noise, traffic, and trespassing. She requested that some kind oi~ screening
be put between the subdivision and the adjacent properties.
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for
Board deliberation, , Following discussion, Mr. Eslick moved to table the
bearing to the June 4, 1984 Board meeting to tallow the applicant to resolve
the question of lot size with regard CO the adjacent zone, The motion was
seconded by Mr. Wright and passed unanimously.
VAR 8-84 - A request by Grand Development Company for approval of a
variance to the 30 foot side yard setback requirement applicable to the
construction, of a residence. The subject property is an irregularly
shaped lot adjacent to Blue Heron Bay at the corner. of South Shore and
Alder Circle.
Mr. Mi.niszewski presented the staff report, giving the applicable setbacks
for this site. He stated that the applicant was requesting this variance
qlp to decrease the setback of the side yard. by 25 feet, leaving five feet
from. the proposed dwelling to the property line which is parallel 'with
South Shore Boulevard. Staff recommended denial of the application because
Development: Review Board Meeting
May 21, 1984
Page
411
of the prospect of future widening of South Shore Boulevard, and because
the request is not the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the
property,
John Brosy, Pinning Consultant representing the applicants 7801 SA1
lgth Avenue, Portland, spolke in behalf`of the, app;la.catidn, tile said 'until
1983 this site had a residence which was sot back five feet from the property
line, He said in order to make the best'use of the lot :for a dwelling,
the applicant was requesting the variance, Mrs, Brosy said there 10 a wall,
at the property line, and he felt this, along with the bridge a short
way down the street, should preclude street widening which could cause
a problem With the five foot setback, He also said he felt the developers
could save the tree which was inside the wall on the lot line, Mr, Brosy
gave a slide presentation to explain the request, and answered questions
for Board members,
Opposition
Ul odor:e laolanian,_16984 SW Alder Circle, spoke in opposition to the
application. He said he was not opposed to the construction of a home
on the property, but was concerned with traffic on South Shore, pedestrian,
safety, and that the structure planned was too large for the lot, He
felt a variance would be necessary, but that the applicant's request
410 was not the mirrimurn necessary.
Rebuttal
John Brosy spoke, saying that the fence between the subject property and
Mr, Lachmaa's would remain, that every effort would be taken to insure
Mt`, 'Lachn n's privacy, that the addition of one residence would not have
mach effect on traffic, and that the driveway had been located as far
from the intersection as possible
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for
Board deliberation.
b'lr. Miniszcwski submitted two additional letters in support of the
application to the Board (Exhibits li and 1) ,
After discussion of the issues and review of the application's meeting,
of variance criteria, the Board reached a consensus that the variance
was not the miniltun necessary. They felt a variance of the setback would
be suitable for this lot, but that 25�-font variance was t lame,
Mr. B slick moved for denial of VAR 8-84 with the condition that an
application for a variance can be resubmitted with a waiver of the six
nxmth waiting period. Mr. Glasgow seconded this motion, and it passed
unanimously,
410
Chairman Hutchins declared a five minute recess, The meeting reconvened
at 9.45 'p.m.
Development Review Board Meeting
May 21, 1984
Page 4
411
DR 10-84 A re uest. by Thomas Gregoire forpppp roval of a minor partition
qq
and for approval to construct a 3,330 square foot manor cttcring and oCLlce
building; on the newly created lot located north of the iea.tedportion of
Lakeview Boulevard at Pilkington Road.
Mr, Galante presented the staff report. He described t ho site, and said
a site plan had been approved for the adj acent property which had bearing
on this hearing He gave the Board a copy of a Preliminary survey
(Exhibit B) . He discussed the conditions necessary for approval of this
application. Mr. Galante said the cost of the lighting, waa a concern of
the applicant, but that they could work with Mr, Drarrov to come up with
coordinated lighting acceptable to both,
Tom Gregoire, 17311 Cedar Road, Lake Oswego, spoke in behalf of the
application. He said all condit ens can be c(nrq.ilied witch, and said he
was willing to world with City engineering staff regarding the provision
of a pollution control manhole.
Paul Zelika, general contractor, said he was working with unginoer.inf;
staff on the pollution control- manhole, He said his only concern was their
ability to save the lone fir tree on the site. He said the tree had been
determined to be old and deteriorating, and was a liability. He requested
that they not be required to save the tree. They are providing approximately
507, landscape coverage.
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for
Board discussion. Mr, Elsick _indicated he had concerns with the design
of the building. The Board discussed the need for preservation of the
fir tree, and a possible condition for approval for the project requiring
a professional determination of the tree's health. lFol.lcrorLng discussion,
Ma . Glasgow moved that the Board approve DR 10-84 with the conditions of
staff as reported previously, and adding a tenth condition, The conditions
are as follows,
1. That an accurate survey be provided illustratinp the partition,
that the survey be registered at the County Surveyor's Office,
and that the partition he recorded at the County Recorder's
Office to the satisfaction of staff,
2. That access easements be obtained by the applicant for access
accross Tax Lot 3600, and'that a cross easement be granted to
Parcel l (north) to allow the single access at Pilkington to
function for all three lots (Tax. Lot 3600, Parcel 1 of 3500,
and Parcel 11 of 3500)
li 3. That the location and screening of mechanical equipment and
garbage storage be illustrated to the satisfaction of staff.
trees; that it be
4. That the' landscape plan include scarlet oak
consistent with any revised site plan; and, that it show the
proper location of walkways,
Development Review Board Meeting-
May 21, 1984
Page 5
411
5. That drainage be illustrated to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, and chat it include a drywell stubbed to Pilkington
Read,
6. That walkways be widened to provide five feet of unobstructed
I walkway surface, and that a walkway be extended to connect to
the planned sidewalk on Pilkington Road,
7. That driveway widths (24') and radii (minimum inside radius of
15') be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and
that parking lot modifications include 6" high curbs,
8, That an agreement for the shared use of the trash area be
provided to the satisfaction of staff,
9 That a nonremonstrance agreement be signed by the property
owner of Tax Lot 3500, Parcel I for future improvements to
Pilkington Road,
10, That an arborist• be retained to review the condition of the 18"
fir tree and make recontrtend&ttions concerning preservation or
removal for staff action,
410 The motion was seconded by Ms, Ericsson, and passed unanimously,
SD 9-84 An application for approval of a preliminary plat for the
Vstlake commercial area (also known as Centexpointe), and including
Phase 2 and 3 single Tawny, and Phase 1and 2multi family, of Westlake
Residential PUD, The applicant is CYJW , Inc,
Ms. Young presented the staff report. She said the reason for the plat
request at this time is the developers are beginning to divide ownerships
of the individual parcels, and under Oregon s;:ate law a plat is necessary
for a division of more than three pieces. This request is consistent
with previous approvals (O17PS 1-82 and PUD 3-80) Staff recommended
approval with eleven conditions,
Chairman Hutchins said that there were three sections of open space
designated, and that the applicant had agreed on open, space of 15 acres
(4 in the drainage area, 3 along Ball Creek, 2 in the conifers, with the
6 acre balance throughout the development parcels) in both Conservancy
Commission and Planning Conmission approvals. He said the two acres in
conifers is not shown as specifically set aside open space area, It
is included in parcels~ 3, 4, and 6, This is not what was originally
intended.
Ms. Young said the two acres in conifers is shown in the master plan. It
is not platted because it has not been identified as to exactly where it
will be at this time. She said it is not the intent of the plat, Final
111, determination of the conifer area will be part, of the development o.f
those parcels when it occurs, She said the approximate boundaries of the
2 acre open space could be indicated on the plat by a clashed line.
Nawzad Othman, OTAit, Inc. , 15110 SW Boortes Perry load,,, spoke on behalf of
Development: Review Board Meeting
May 21, 1984
Page 6
f3irtcher, Frank, McDonald 'properties and the Mormon Church. lie gave the
background of the original 1?UD and ODPS approvals. He discussed the
open space area in contention, and said the exact: design of the conifer
open space cannot be determined until the exact boundaries of development
on Lots 2, 4, and 6 are determined,
Mr. Otlmaan and the Board discussed their viewpoints on how the 2 acre
conifer open space was to be placed. The Board's view was it was to be in
a mass grouping, and Mr,. Othtrnrt's view was that it could be divided into
several portions.
ttr', 0thnkln discussed the conditions recouinendod by staff for approval,
He requested that the open space boundaries for tots 8, 9, and 10 be shown
as a dashed line along the boundaries of each, with identification as open
space, and that minor: modifications be allowed when developments are
approved and surveys are made (Conditions h and i) . They do not want to
show the open space as tracts at this stage, but as areas, Ms, Young
suggested that an acreage requirement be added to the condition consistent
with PUD 3_80. Mr. Othman asked for, the elimination of condition h, and
that Lot 8 be added to condition i.
No one else spoke, ,and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for
Board deliberation, Following discussion centering on the L acre conifer
410 open space being identified on the plat, Mr, Esl ick moved rot approval of
SD 9-84 with the following conditions;
1. All conditions of the previous Orders are met,
2. An access easement be granted to the City over Tracts A, i , and
C, and over open space tracts in Lots 9 and 10,
3, That the utility easement through lot 8 is increased to 50' find
dedicated to the City.
4. That all right-of-way is dedicated and all easements granted to
the City prior. to final plat,
5, An erosion control plan be submitted with the plans for the storm
drainage system.
6. That easetients are granted to the City over the drainage ways
in Lot 8, with final resolution of their exact location to be
determined during development approvals on let 8,
7, Applicant to stake actual boundaries of Tracts A, C, and south
line of Tract B in the field for verification by staff prior to
final platting,
8, That open
the boundaries of the open space in Lots 8, 9, end 10 be shown
as op space areas prior to final platting with acreage for each
area show
Development Review Board Meeting
May 21, 1984
Page 7
4 9. Applicant to submit.. proposed street plan for access to Lots 9 and
10 verifying that the proposal can meet City trade and alignment
standards.
10. That a minimum of two acres of conifer forest be preserved as open
spaces of no more than three related mass groupings :in Lots 3,
4, and 6. Exact location to be defined at the ;t;1me of development
approval.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Glasgow and passed unanimously,
GENERAL 'PLANNING
1 Ms. Young informed the Board that the Planning Cotmu.ssiori was holding a
workshop on the draft wetland standard on May 23, The Planning Commission
will hear the Wetland Standard proposal on June 11 Input is needed from
the Development Review Board by their June 4 meeting to be presented at
the Planning Commission hearing on the llth. The City Council will consider
the standard on June 19.
Ms. Young also informed the Board the City Council will be holding a
workshop on the Sign Code on May 29.
Chairman Hutchins read a letter of appreciation of service .from the
41, City Council to the Board.
OILIER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions, and Order
The following findings were approved for signing by the Board, r1,
Bslick abstained from the votes.
- VAR 9-84-134 (Gary Silver Approved as written
- VAR 6-84-132 (Olson Argo) approved as amended
SD 2-84/VAR 2-84-133 (Dan Scott)approved as amended
AflJOURt I *
It was rxaved, seconded, and passed unardxously to adjourn the meeting}
Chairman Hutchins adjourned the meeting at 11 45 p.tn.
Respectfully Submitted,
e7CA
Kris ti Iitchcock
Secretary
III
I
� I
Mir
(/f
1''II
nn
iiii) R � D
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
DEVELOPMENT- REVIEW' BOARD MEETING
JUNE 4, 1984
The Development Review Board meeting was called to order by Chairman
Richard Hutchins at 7:37 p.m. Board members present were Chairman
Hutchins, John Glasgow, Lynn Takeuchi, and Anthony Wright. Staff
present were City Planners Bob Galante and Gary Miniszewski, Deputy
City Attorney Mark Pilliod, and Secretary Kristi Hitchcock,
APPROVAL OF MLNUTES
Mr. Wright moved to approve the minutes of May 21, 1984 as amended.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Glasgow and passed unanimously,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mt. Miniszewski communicated information which would be used later in
the meeting for consideration of the findings for VAR 8-84, Grand
Development Company. He also said he had received a communication from
the applicant for PA 4-84 requesting that their hearing be continued to
June 18, 1984 because they had only recently bean advised of the lot
size requirements for lots abutting zones.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
111 The Board revised the order of the agenda to hear PA 4-84 first because of
the request for continuance communicated by Mr. Miniszewski,
PA 4-84 - A request by Michael Fain for approval of a 42 lot Residential
Planned Development in the Residential-5 (R-5) zone dastrict. In addition,
the applicant is requesting approval of a variance, VAR 11-84, to the
Transit Standard which requires that a hard surfaced path be provided to
connect the development to the nearest transit facility. The subject
property is 8.25 acres and located east of the Galen Street and Peters
Road intersection.
Mike. Fain, 7160 SU Hazelfern Road, Tualatin, spoke in behalf of the
request for continuance. He represents Century �1 Properties, Inc. He
said they har' only recently been informed of the resolution adopted by
the City Council requiring lots abutting in R-7,5 zone not be smaller
than 75% of the lot area requirement. This requirement will make it
necessary for them to revise their application. He requested that the
hearing be continued to June 18, 1984 meeting of the Development
Review Board.
Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing, and Mr. Takeuchi moved to
continue PI) 4-84 to June 18. The motion 'was seconded by Mr. Glasgow and
passed unanimously.
1 DR 11-84 A continuance of the hearing held MA 21, 1984. The applicant,
IIIDennis Derby is requesting to mo. e • ver Run II anne. '- - opment
which was approved at the April 16, 1984 Development Review Board meeting
with 45 lots. The applicant has proposed a density increase of ,six lots
sased on recently amended procedure for the calculation of density. The
ite is southeast of Bryant and trp -Bryant and Childs Road intersection,
Development Review Board Meeting
June 4, 1984
Page 2
Mr. Miniszewski presented the staff report. He said the applicant has
modified the site plan so that perimeter lots of the project meet the
new buffering requirements. Based on the new plat proposal, Exhibit I
All of the perimeter lots are 11,250 square feet or larger on the north,
east, and west side of the site.
Dennis Derby, 19697 River Run Drive, said they have adjuutecl all the
perimeter rots so that they are at-.east 75% or mere of the adjacent
R-15 zone lot size. He requested approval of their request now that
they have met this requirement.
Mindy Klann, 19565 SW 35th Court, said she was not opposed to the appli-
cation but was concerned`about-Ehe public access road which could be
within five feet of her aunt's house. She requested thatiE another
access is available to the open space area, it be used instead of the
public access now shown.
Mr. Pilliod requested that the entire record of the hearing for PD 1-84
be adopted as testimony for this hearing, The Board adopted the ;record
of PD 1-84 as testimony for the hearing.
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for
Board deliberation. Mr. Glasgow asked the applicant if as many trees as
possible were planned to be saved on the east side of the site. Mr. Derby
411 said that other than tree cutting for the provision of sewer lines and
roads, they plan to save as many trees as possible, Board members indicated
they now felt the plat map met requirements, and that approval was possible.
Mr. Takeuchi moved for approval of DR 11-84 with the following conditions:
1. That all the conditions for approval of PD 1-84 be met.
2. That the property owner of the site be responsible for paying
their fair share of the cost of the canal trunk line construction,
The above payment amount will be determined by the Engineering
staff and payment is required before the final plat is signed
by City officials.
and, that. Exhibit I, Revised Site Plan, he accepted showing lot sizes.
The notion was seconded by Mr, Glasgow, and passed unanimously.
DR 12-84/SD 3-84 A request by Barbara Giddings for approval of four
attached units consisting of two single family houses on individual lots,
and a duplex on the remaining lot. A minor partition is also requested
11 to divide the parcel into the three lots described above, A variance to
the Transit Standard requirements is requested as well. The parcel is
located at 296-302 Cervantes.
Mr. Galante presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval with
ten conditions.
• Ralph Tahran, 15110 SW Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100, spoke in behalf of
the application. He said they agree to meet ail conditions recommended
by staff. The units planned are small because of parking problems on
Cervantes. They have allowed space for offstreet parking for each unit.
Development Review Board Meeting
June 4, 1984
Page 3
They are working with the Public Works staff on details of the driveways.
He said the units are planned to be sold, not rented. Mr. Tehran said he
had discussed development plans with the Mt. Park Homeowners Association,
and that they had requested the siding be beveled cedar 'a" x 6". Since
staff also requested this siding, they will go along with that request.
He answered questions from Board members regarding offstreet parking.
Ward Svary, 274 Cervantes, expressed concern about vehicles parking on
the street. He asked about the enforcement of parking ordinances.
Mr. Svary was also concerned about the drainage on the rear of the
property, and said vertical siding did not hold up as well as horizontal
siding. (Ile recognized that the applicants would not be wing vertical
siding.)
a
Rebuttal
Mr. Tahran said the drainage ditch to the rear will drain all the units.
He said the outlet beneath one crossing (culvert) needed cleaning out,
and they planned to take care of that problem. He agreed with the comments
on vertical siding versus horizontal siding.
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for.
Board deliberation. Following discussion, Mr. Takeuchi, moved for
III approval of the variance to the transit standard; and DR 12-84 and
SD 3-84 with the following conditions:
1. That building siding be 1" x 6" cedar bevel siding for the
entire structure.
2. That the landscape plan be revised to include a plant schedule,
closer spacing of ground cover, and the treatment of existing
vegetation.
3. That the landscape plan be revised to remove obstructions in
the access easement.
4. That a plan for automatic underground irrigation be submitted
prior to the issuance of building permits, or that the applicant
demonstrate to the staff's satisfaction that proper irrigation
will be provided.
5. That final drainage and utility plans be provided to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director,
6. That driveway grades be provided to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director.
7. That partitioning survey be registered with theltnomah
County Surveyor's Office.
8. That legal descriptions of each lot be specified on a legal
instrument for title transfer, and the instruments be recorded
with the Multnomah County Clerk's Office.
Development Review Board Meeting
June 4, 1984
Page
410
9, That evidence of the above survey registration and legal
instrument for title transfer, and the instruments be recorded
with the Multnomah County Clerk's Office.
10. That easements as illustrated in Exhibit ''B" he referenced in
all deeds.
11. That a soils report be required before issuance Pr building
permits,
The motion was seconded by Mr. Glasgow and passed unanimously,
Chairman Hutchins declared a five w nute recess. The meeting reconvened
with continuation of public hearings.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
DR 13-84 - A request by Carbarn, Inc, for approval of a 120 unit congregate
Sage housi, facility'and a minor partition co create a lot for the
future development o1 33 additional units, The 6,2? acre site is located
south of Carman Drive and west of Davis Lane,
Mr. Galante presented the staff report. Be said staff had received
II, supplementary material from the applicant: Exhibit N, a supplementary
narrative that addressed issues in the staff report; Exhibit 0, a letter
from the State Housing Division describing criteria under which the
. applicant was required to design this structure; and, other miscellaneous
materials. Mr. Galante said that two of the liajor issues were the vacation
of 20' of the right-of-way along Carman Drive, which needs action by the
City Council; and, the necessity of advertise modification of the Planning
Conmission'a condition for the zone change requiring an additional 10'
of right-of-way along Carman Drive for the hikepath, The partition
requested by the applicant is another issue. The zone change approval
allowed 180 units of special use housing. The applicant is proposing
15,E units on the larger parcel, but may build a different type of
facility on the smaller parcel. Staff recommended that a conditional
use hearing would probably he necessary unless special use housing
was:built on the smaller parcel as well. Staff recommended that the
Board take testimony on the project at this hearing, and continue the
remainder of the hearing with the understanding that any action would
depend on a position City Council action on the vacation of Carman Drive,
Proponents
Edward Allis, representing Carbarn 1 Inc. 5331 SW Macadam Avenue, Portland,
in behalf of the appl cation lie said they plan to construct 1'2
units in the first phase and 33 units in the second phase. This change has
been made for marketing reasons. Mr. Allis said that in order to obtain
financing, it is necessary for them to have their plans approved by
411 the Board. He discussed concerns raised by staff.
Development Review Board'Meetinf;
June 4, 1984
Page 5
•
Joe Grigss, architect, 5331 SW Macadam Avenue, Portland, said they
have submitted their project Co the neighborhood association, and
received unanimous approval fran that group. He discussed staff's
request that the parking lot be broken up, and said they would conform
to this request. I-[e discussed specifics of the project, and answered
questions from Board members,
Charles Rosenfeld, 1703 SW Clay Street, Portland, Rosenfeld Associates,
landscape architects, discussed the landscaping for the project,
expecially with regard to the preservation of the existing, oak trees,
Opponents
Mike Taylor, 10 tIotspur, said he had two concerns with the project,
Tile first concern was that the building design be finalized in plans before
a decision is reached by the Board, He was concerned specifically wit11
the mass of the building ,facing Carman Drive. He would like to see the
front of the building lowered a story. Mr. Taylor's second concern was
the landscaping buffer. He requested that evergreen plantings be used,
possibly rhododendrons.
John James, Menlo Park, California, owner of 4000 Kruse Way Place, the
adjacent property, said he spoke neither for nor against the project.
He was concerned regarding the mess of the building. lie felt the
building should be lowered on the side facing his complex, He would
I like to see finishing details which would create architectural variety,
Mr. James was concerned with the pathway location, drainage from the site,
fire truck access, and landscaping.
Rebuttal
Mr. Griggs said the concerns raised were appropriate, and they would
look at those kinds of eLaments which would provide the building with
architectural variety, He discussed the location of the bikepath,
fire truck access, landscaping, and storm drainage.
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for
Board deliberation. Mr. Galante summarized the issues which needed to
be resolved in the application, Following discussion, Mr. Takeuchi
moved to table DR 13-84 to the June 18, 1984 Development Review Board
meeting. Mr. Wright seconded the notion, and it passed utanimously.
GE1`.a'£ PLANNING
Mr. Pilliod reported on the progress of the wetland standard revision.
He said the Planning Commission was planning to consider the standard
on June 11, 1984. The Board will review the standard on June 18, 1984.
e OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions, and Order
DR 10-84/SD 8-84, Thomas Gregoire It was moved, seconded, and passed
to sign the findings, Only three
Board members were eligible to vote,
so there will be a second vote at
the next meeting.
Development Review Board Meeting
r ,Tune 4, 1984
Page 6
411
SD 9-84, Centerpointe The vote was delayed until the
next meeting,; The Board recoinded
amendments to the findings,
VAR 8-84, Grand Development The vote was delayed until the next
meeting, The Board reccornended an
amendment.
ADJOURI M IT
There being no further business, Chairman Hutchins adj ourned the meeting
et 10:58 p,m;
Respectfully Submitted,
TCri ti Hitchcock
Secretary
410
' I
•
•
•
•
•
•
' '
i
r
•
_.:. „«�4„ � 's��� ��•-., � � „�...,.� ,s13�+�'..r ,w_ it .�ky��s.,a� ,�.�y.rc.+r ter,.R vv..'M a.x...-,�,- .�.�h,t x,w. ..,..4u
, ■
1 DEVMPYIIIT REVIEW BOARD Mtt,'i INC
JUNE 18, 1984
The Development Review Board meeting was called to order by Chaim
Richard Hutchins at 800 p.m. Board u)an ers present were Chairman
Hutchins, John stem, Anthony Wright, and John Glasgow. Board members
absent (excused absences) were Richard Esl.i.ck and Lynn Takeuchi. . Staff
present were City Planners Bob Galante, Stan T'idman, and Gary Miniazcwskt;
Deputy City Attorney, Mark Pi1Uod; and, Secretary, ?Cristt Hitchcock,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Wright raved for approval, of the minutes of June 4 1984. as written.
The motion on was seconded by Mx, Glasgow, and passed with Mr. Wright, Ivtt ,
4 Glasgow, and Chairman Hutchins voting in favor. Mr. Fulton abstained, as
he was absent at the June 4 meeting, The minutes will need a; second
vote at the July 2 meeting to verify this vote,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Pt) 3-84 - A Continuation of a request by Vergil ro doll for approval of
p two--lot Planned Development nt an R-7.5 zone. ' `ie Iocttiin for 'this
requested action is 2943 Lakeview Boulevard,
T'idman presented the staff report. In the prior staff report, staff
I had recox vended denial of the application, but have changed this re-
commendation to approval subject to conditions based on submittal of
supplemental evidence by the applicant (Exhibit 3, Vicinity Trap; Exhibit K,
Site Plan; end, Exhibit L, Narrative),
Glen Chi1cote,_ Architect, 3480 SW Upper Drive, spoke in behalf of the
applicant, He said that the driveway access has been designed to allow
view in both directions on Lakeview Boulevard, He discussed the building
plans, and the drainage solutions for the site, He answered questions
for Board members,
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for
Board de1ieration. Board discussion centered on the driveway access,
and whether it was viable or not. Chairman Hutchins did not feel the
driveway all:awed adequate turning space for a vehicle exiting* and it
would encourage cars backing onto Lakeview Boulevard.
lam, Wright moved for approval of PD 3-84, subject to the recommendations
cited by staff with an addition as follows:
1. A survey (as depicted on Exhibit 10 be registered with the
Clackamas 'County Surveyors Office, This survey should clearly
depict the five (5) foot special street setback (25 feet :from
centerline) along both parcels'' Lakeview Boulevard :frontage.
2, Legal descriptions of each lot be specified on legal instruments
for title transfer, and the instruments be recorded at the
Development Review Board Meeting
June 18, 1984
Page 2
411 Clackamas County Clerk's Office, The instruments for both
parcels shall reference this land use application, and its
conditions of approval as outlined in the City of Lake Oswego's
Planning Department file no, PD 3-84.
p
3. Evidence of the above survey registration and legal' instrument
recordation be provided to the City Planning Departnv3nt, No
building permits can be issued until this evidence is provided,
4, A site drainage plan based on this proposal be prepared in
accordance with 'the Drainage Standard and approved by the Public
Works Department,
5. No buildings are to be located within the 25 foot setback from
the centerline of Lakeview Boulevard,
6. Appropriate soils investigation to evaluate the excavatability of
the rock, and to provide recommendations for safe construction j
slopes, foundation drainage, and earth pressure against all
retaining walls to the satisfaction of City engineering staff.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Fulton, and passed with all Board members
present voting in favor, Mr, Hutchins stated that he was not convinced
the driveway exiting situation was adequate, but that he would vote for
the nation nonetheless.
410 Da 13-84 - A continuation of a request by Carbarn, Inc, for approval of .
a 153 unit con�'late care housing facilityan a Minor partition to
create a lot .for the future development of1 27 additional units. Elimination
of a condition of 2C 10-78 (Ordinance 1723) which, required 10 feet of
additional right-of-way along Carman .]hive was also required, The 6.2
acre site is located south of Carman Drive and west of Davis Lane.
Mr Galante presented the staff report. He introduced new exhibits
submitted by the applicant. Staff recommended approval with 17 conditions,
Some of the conditions could be eliminated because of new evidence sub-
ndtted by the applicant, Mr. Galante answered questions for Board members,
Chairman Hutchins reopened the public portion of the hearing to allow
testimony on the additional request of the applicant and the new
evidence submitted.
Edward Allis, President of Carbarn Inc. , spoke in behalf of the
application. He addressed the conditions of approval recommended by
staff, pointing out those conditions which his submittals had addressed,
and referring the Board to those exhibits which illustrated the
conditions having been met.
Joe Grigg,s, Architect, gave a slide presentation illustrating the loca-
tion of- the development, and discussed the plans for the project. He
Ash answered questions from Board members.
Mr. Galante, said he had received a telephone call from John James,
who had testified at the last hearing (owner of 4000 Kruse Way Place),
Development Review Board Meeting
June. 18, 1984
Page
in which Mr._ James said hip, main concern was the building elevations,
Mr. James had not receiver, a copy of the plans. Mr, , Galante said that
after describing changes made by the applicant, Mr. Jones had indicated
that if the }hoard felt the applicant had adequately met his concerns,
he would agree with their decision. Tyr. Galante said he had also received
a letter from Richard' and Mary Wilmott in favor of the project,
Chi-Arlie Rosenfeld landscape architect, discussed landscape plans
for the project, He detailed the types of plantings to be used as
buffers between this building and 4000 Kruse Way Place and the residential
areas
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the publichearing for
Board deliberation, Following discussion, Mr. Glasgow ;loved that the
Board accept DR 13-84 with the eleven conditions as outlined by staff.
1, That all plans illustrate 5-root wide walkways, and that easements
be provided to allow public access over private property where
necessary,
2. That landscaping of the detention pond be provided to the
satisfaction of staff.
3. That a plan for an automatic underground irrigation system be
provided prior to the issuance of building permits.
410
4. That maintenance access to the detention facility be provided
to the satisfaction of staff,
5. That lighting be revised to not exceed that of adjacent development,
and that site and street lighting plans be provided to the. satis-
faction of the Public Works Director,
6. That fire fighting access be provided to the satisfaction of the
Fire Mrshal.,
7, That a slope easement be provided over the 1,095 acre lot for
any grading which will occur on the lot as a result of development
on the larger lot.
8. That a partitioning survey be registered with the Clackamas County
Surveyor's Office.
9. That legal descriptions of each lot be specified on a legal
instrument for title transfer, and the instruments be recorded
with the Clackamas County Clerk's Office.
10, That evidence of the above survey registration and legal instrument.
recordation be provided to the City Planning Department,
410 11, That no permit:,;: he issued unless the applicant deri nstrates a
positive Council action on the street vacation request,
Development Review Board feting
June 18, 1984
Page 4
• The notion was seconded by Mr, Wright, and passed with Mt. Glasgow, Mr.
Wright, Mr. Fulton, and Chairman Hutchins voting in favor.
M . Glasgow moved to eliminate the condition of the Planning Commission
in ZC 10-78 (Ordinance 1723) requiring 10 feet of additional. right-of-way
along Carman Dtive. The motion was seconded by Mr, Fulton, and passed
unanimously.
Mr. Fulton moved for approval of the partition with the understanding
that all the conditions of DR 13-84 would be adopted as conditions of
the partition as well. The motion was seconded by Mr. Glasgow and
approved unanimously.
PD 2-84 =- A request by DeNaas & Associates, Inc. to modify the Oswego
Shores Estates l'lannea Development (PD 2-84) affecting conditions of
approval 1,-2, and 3 involy hg lot lines, building setback lines, and
open space in separate, privately owned lots. Also, the applicant,
requested that the approved street, Oswego Shore Court, be converted
from a public to a private street. The site is located west of Oak
Knoll Court Subdivision,
Mr. MiniszewskL presented the staff report, He introduced new exhibits
received from; the Lake Corporation in opposition to the proposed
modification for Lot 3 (Exhibit AA), the Lake Oswego Fire Departr nt
Alh (Exhibit BB), and the Postal Service (Exhibit CC) Staff made no
recommendation either for approval or denial, leaving final decision to
the Board.
Marlin Dellaas, 1425 Cherry Crest Drive, Lake Oswe o, office in Wilsonville,
p d'f tons of the conditions, and answered questions
for h nrbe requested the application. Mr, DeHaas scusse t e reasons
for Board members.
lent Ziegler, 18516 SW Bryant Road, discussed the lake rights, saying
that lake rights were an issue that should be dealt with through the
Lake Corporation, as this was their jurisdiction. He said that Lot 3
should be care of t and that. details with the
Lake Corporation would be takenowed its access to the 1ak��hrough them.
Ron Ziegler, 18516 SW Bryant Road, said the subdivision had been Planned
counting a portion of Lot 3 as private open space so that the path gay
could utilize that area. The only alternative is to pay the fee in lieu
of open space.
No one else spoke, and Chairman. 11utchins closed the public hearing for
Board deliberation. Following discussion of the issues, Mr. Fulton
moved to approve PD 2-84 modification as requested on all four items,
with the conditions as stated by staff;
1. That the reproducible copy of the final plat be an exact duplicate
of the hardboard plat, and show the information required in
approved conditions 2 and 3 of PD 2-84,
Development Review Board Member
June 18, 1984;
Page 5
411
2. That the applicant meet with Police and Fire D artments to
determine the best option for emergency vehicles to enter the
project.
3, The homeowners' association have complete responsibility to
maintain the road, and that the maintenance of the stormurater
catch basin be worked out to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Department.
Mr. Glasgow seconded the nation, and it passed with Mr;, Fulton, Mr,
Glasgow, and Mr. Wright voting in favor, Chairman Hutchins voted against
the motion. Mr. Hutchins disagreed with the modification of the open
space condition of the original approval..
Due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Glasgow raved to table items "F"
(PD 5-84/VAR 12-84) and "G" (PD 6-84/VAR 13-84) to the July 2, 1984
meeting. The notion was seconded by W. Wright, and passel unanimously,
DR 15-84 - A request 1?y Alex Arseniev and Regina rtarkova to locate one
secondary dwelling unit fh an R-7,5 zone on property located at tad 3
Block 2, Lake Grove Acreage estates
Mr. Tillman presented the staff report. Staff reconvended approval of
Am the application with five conditions.
Alex Arseniev, 11700 SW 90th Street, Tigard, spoke in, behalf of the
application." He gave the background of—their decision to 'request a
secondary dwelling unit on the property, and discussed their plans for
the site.
No one else spoke, and Chairman livatchns closed the public hearing for
Board deliberation, Following discussion, Mr. Glasgow moved to approve
DR 15-84 with the five conditions in the staff report;
1. LID 213 is completed as planned and adopted by City Council.
2. Deed restrictions be added to the title instrument which
reference City of Lake Oswego Planning File DR 15-84 and;
a. Limit the number of occupants of the secondary dwelling unit
to no more than two persons.
b. Require that one unit shall be occupied by the property
owner,
3. Evidence of this City Planning Department file reference and
deed restrictions on the title instrument must be provided to'
the City 'Planning Department. No building puts will be
issued until this evidence is provided,
111/ 4. The property's driveway be designed to conform with the Site
Circulation-Driveway Standard.
Development Review Board Meeting
June 18, 1984
Page (,
11) 5. A landscape plan be submitted for building plan review. This
plan shall specify street trees in accordance with. Section 9,005
of the Development Code if no existing trees can substitute for
street trees. The plan S iall also illustrate that at least 15%
of the site is landscaped to achieve buffering and screening
to protect privacy of abutting properties,
The motion was seconded by Mr, Wright, and approved with Mr, Glasgow,
rir, Wright, 14r. Fulton, and Chairman Hutchins voting in favor,
PD 4-84 and VAR 11-84 - A request by Michael.: Fain re resent ri Century
21 Properties, Inc. for approval of a -Lot Resi ntia T anne Deveio meennt
in the R-5 zone district. In addition, the applicant requested approve
of a variances; (VAR 11-84) : a variance to the Transit Standard, anTT
variance to the Landscaping, Screening, and Buffering Standard requiring
all perimeter lots be not less than 75% of the required area of adjacent
lots zoned R-7.5.
Mr. Miniszewski presented the staff report. He reiterated the Conservancy
Commission recommendations for the open space and Distinctive Natural
Area on the site. He said that a continuance had been requested at the last.
meeting because the applicant had not been made aware of the recent passage
of an amendment to the Landscaping, Screening, and Buffering Standard,
Staff recommended approval of the Planned Development and the variances
with 19 conditions.
Michael Fain, representing Century 21, Inc. spoke in behalf of the
application. Ise discussed plans for the project, and plans for Open
Natural" areas, He discussed their request for a
Space and Distinctivel
variance to the Landscaping and Buffering Standard, and answered questions
for Board members.
David Oringdoulph spoke in behalf of the application. He described the
type of homes to be built in the development.
Linda Warwick, resident of Del Prado subdivision, spoke in opposition.
She asked that the variance to the tuffering, Standard requirement for
size of lots abutting her subdivision not be granted. She submitted a
petition signed by residents of the area (Exhibit P) ,
Rebuttal
Mike Fain, said the applicants would agree to Ms. Warwick's request that
the homes bordering their subdivision be limited to one and one-half
stories. Ile said they would also agree to a milli n of 20 feet setback
on the rear lots, and had planned to have larger than required setbacks
originally. Ile said they had reduced their request ,frail. the 53 lots of
cluster development originally approved on this site (1959) to 42 lots,
and they did 'not want to cut back further for economic reasons. He
requested approval of their variance request to the Buffering Standard,
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for
Board eliberation.
Development Review Board. Meeting
June 18, 1984
Page 7
Allh The Board discussed the impact of building heights on adjacent residents,
They also discussed the applicability of the Buffering Standard to this
development Chairman Hutchins said a precedent bad been set in a pre,
vious hearing for requirement_of conformity to the Buffering Standard.
Chairman Hutchins reopened the public hearing for additional testimony,
Mike Fain said he would work with the residents of Del Prado for an
acceptable solution, He requested that a heighth limitation be put on
the lots on the eastern boundary, and that they not be required to
redesign the,plat.
Linda Warwick, said that her basic concern is the size of the lots planned.
She said it was easier to correct this now, The houses being made one
and one-half stories instead of two stories would be acceptable,
Following further discussion, Mr. Glasgow moved; 1) To approve the variance
to the Transit Standard; 2) To deny the variance to the landscaping and
Buffering Standard, waiving the six month appeal period for resuhnittal,
maintaining the 42 lots, but to adhere to the Standard; 3) To approve
PD 4-84 with the 20 conditions as outlined.
1. That maximum tree removal during constructiono of streets, utility
lines, and dwellings not exceed .35,E (230 trees),
2. That a tree cutting plan be submitted to staff before final plat
410 approval showing what trees over 8" in caliper will be cut for
street, utility, and dwelling construction in the Distinctive
Natural Area,
3. That a plan be submitted to staff for the protection of trees to
be retained before the street grading and construction.
4. That a tree maintenance plan be submitted addressing treatment of
trees whose roots have been distrubed during construction.
5 No trees may be removed in the Open Space area within the stream
corridor and the northeast corner of the property (in the open
space) without a tree cutting permit being obtained from the City.
Any permit request must be accompanied by an arborist's report
stating reasons for removal. This condition shall be placed in
the CC&R's.
6. That if there is a path in the open space area, it be a soft
footpath to protect existing understory vegetation.
7. That CC&R's contain a clause disallowing dumping in the open
space area, and that if dumping occurs, the homeowners
association be responsible for cleanup.
8. That the CC&R's require replacement of existing trees with plants
of the same species at approximately the same density in case
11111 vegetation in open space of the Distinctive Natural Area is wholly
or partially destroyed.
Development Review Board Meeting
June 18, 1984
Page 8
II
9. That garbage presently on the site be cleaned up before final
plat approval.
10. That the following be provided to protect the Distinctive Natural
Area in open space before building permits for dwellings are
required.
a. Native understoryplantings along the soft footpath (if a
path is provided) to keep foot traffic on the path,
b. That plantings be made at the eastern boundary of the
development's designated open space to screen the Distinctive
Natural Area,
c. The CC&R's will require the Homeowner's Association to Maintain
the understory plantings and boundary plantings required by
,►a„ and "b,w above,
11. That a 5' strip of land along Peters Road be dedicated to the
public for road right-of-way purposes before the final Plat is
signed by City officials.
12. That a 20' 'half street improvement on the east side of the Peters
Road right-of-way be constructed including provision of curb,
ill sidewalk, street trees, and street lights before building permits
are issued in the project.
13, That Peters Road street improvement include provision of a culvert
designed to accommodate a 50 year frequency storm,
14. That Peters Road street improvement include a means (i,e,
curb and gutter or stormdrain with catch basins) of carrying
storn:ca.ter runoff from the improved roadway to the stream corridor
as shown on the plan view of the utility plan (Exhibit (3) ..
15. That road frontage for Lots 2 and 3 in Block 2, and Lot 1.0 in Block
1, be increased to accommodate needed driveway width increase before
the final plat is signed by City officials,
16. That a grading and erosion control plan be provided to the
Engineering Department before final plat submission showing that
all standards (Sections 16,020-16,035) of the Hillside Protection
and Erosion Control Standard will be net,
17. That 10" water lines be used in, the provision of water to the site
in Peters Road, and to each lot in the project.
18. That property lines of lots fronting the stream be paralleled
with the stream channel and the stream corridor easement line, and
not be more than five feet from the easement line.
Development Review Board Meeting
June 18 1984
page 9
4111 19. That street light and tree locations be reconsidered to alleviate
conflicts before final utility and street tree plans are submitted,
The above plans be provided for staff review before the final plat
is submitted to City officials for consideration and signatures,
20. Buildings on. the east boundary lots to be a unximam of ik stories,
with, m,i.niin n 20' rear yard setbacks,
Mr Wright seconded the motion, and it passed with /t, Glasgow, flr Wright,
Mr. Fulton, and Chairman Hutchins all voting in favor.
GENERAL PLANNING - None
OTHER BUSINESS Findings, Conclusions, and Order
The following findings were approved for signature;
SD 9-84 Centerpoint (amended)
DR 10-84 and SD 8-84 Thomas Gregoire
The following findings were approved for signature, but will require
a second vote at the next Board meeting:
VAR 8-84 .. Grand Development
DR 11-04-138 modification - River Run II, Dennis Derby
DR. 12-84/SD 3-84 - Barbara Giddings
ADJ'OURI NT
There being no further business to conduct, Chairman Hutchins adjourned
the meeting at 1;22 a.m,
Respectfully Submitted,
7*izi3 �Y,c �iCd �
Kristi Hitchcock.
Secretary
n 'I
I
.. ..r. � tr .,,:.. .. .c....Y o .o.. .v..•,.,. .«. .. .... ,.,a„t+x:.. rh.Y: .... :,d .. ..,e.e4i�. ml. a.rr.e .� .. ..�.. . ,. .. ... ...
l' Ti' t'r T
ill
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
ip DEVE1OPb1ENT' TIEW BOARD METING
Ju LY 2, 1984
The Development Review Board meeting was called to order. by Chairman
Richard Hutchins at 6:36 p.m. Board members present were Chairmar.
Hutchins, Richard Eslick, John Fulton, John Glasgow, and Anthony Wright
Lynn Takeuchi was excused. Staff present were City Planner Gary
M niszewski, Mark Pilliod Deputy City Attorney, and Kristi, Hitchcock
Secretary.,
APPROVAL OF MtNNUIES
' Mr. Glasgow moved for approval of the minutes of June 4, Mr. Wright
seconded the motion, and it passed with Mr. Glasgow, Mr, Wright, and
Chairman Hutchins>voting in favor, John Fulton and Richard Eslick
abstained, This vas the second vote for approval of the June 4 minutes,
verifying the first vote of 3-0-1;
M Wright moved for approval of the minutes of June 18 as corrected,
Mr. Fulton seconded the motion, and it passed with Mr. Wright, Mr
Fulton, Mr. Glasgow, and Chairman Hutchins voting in favor. Mr.
T,:slick abstained,
III PETITIONS AND COl`M ICATIONS
Mr.. Miniszewski reported that Mr. Piercy of Piercy C. Barclay, Designers,
who represents N!r. Talaghani, had requested an extension of six months
Fran July 6 to begin construction of the commercial building approved
in January (DR 18-83) . Mr Miniszewski said that Condition 13 of
that approval required completion within six months, hut the 'wording
was not exactly clear. The reason for this petition was to determine if
the Board's intent was that the building be completed within six months.
If that was their intent, Mr. Piercy would need to apply for a rodification
of Condition 13 and the Board would hear that application.
Mt. Hutchins, being the only member of the Board present during the
hearing of DR 18-83, said the Board's intent was that the building was
to be corloleted in six months,
,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PD 5-84/VAR 12-84 A request by OTAK, Inc. for the approval of a
Residential Planned Development consisting of 17 lots ranging in size
between 11,28O and 44,770 square Teet, In addition, the applicant
requested approval of a variance (VAR 12-84) to the Transit Standard
which requires a hard surfaced path to connect the development to the
nearest transit facility. The subject Property is located in the R-r15
zone, and is part of Glenmorrie Park.
Mr. Miniszewski presented the staff report, He said the developer has
met the requirements of the. Landscaping and Buffering Standard in that
Development 'Review Board lileting
July 2, 1984
Page 2
411 lots bordering the R-15 zone are at least 75% of the 15,000 square foot
area requirement, The main concern with the site is the potential for
landslides and sail erosion, The applicant has had a preliminary
geotechnical report on the property, and is wgor1< ng with the City
Engineering Department on parading and drainage plans :for the site.
Staff recot;mended approval of the proposed preliminary plat and the
requested variance with 21 conditions, Mr. Mi.niszewskt modified some
of the conditions, eliminating Conditions numbers 12 and 14, and
codifying Condition numbers 7, 0, and 9,
Mr Miniszewski indicated that the applicant was short or the required
amount of open space (20%) , but that if the applicant included portions
of the stream corridor in the open space, they could meet the required
amount. He answered questions for Board members,
Ralph Tehran, OTAK, Inc. , 15110 Boones Ferry Poad, Lake Oswego,
spoke 1n behalf of the application. He discussed- the part culars of
the project. He said they are working with the Engineering Department
on the designs for access roads and driveways, and that because of the
difficulty of the site some adjustments may be necessary in lot lines,
They may have to put in higher retaining walls than shown in the plans
to meet the concerns of the Engineering Department, He said they would
agree to put stream corridor areas in the open space to meet the 2C1
requirement He addressed the conditions recommended for approval by
• staff. He requested that a concrete sidewalk not be required along
Glenmorrie road, instead asking that they be allowed to extend the
asphalt and add traffic bumps to separate the: roadway from the walkway,
(Condition 7) .
Mr. Tahran asked that there be no curb requirements for Glenmorrie Road
Drive.e He that Condition 10 he changed to show that
or Gxeenhlutf asked �
street lights were to meet the half street improvement requirements, Mr,
Tehran answered questions for Board members.
Jack Tofte, 1763 Glenmorrie Drive, owner of the property, said he
V s pleased with the design by OTAK, and that he planned to continue
living in the area.
Otto Keuttner, Glenmorrie Drive, vas concerned that widening of
Glenmorrie Drive would cause difficulties for the existing driveways
He was also concerned about the location of the access
Lewis Arnold, 17948 South 3reen Bluff Drive, said he was in favor of
the development. He lives immediately accross from the access road,
and was concerned that it would cause problems with his driveway. He
also spoke for Joe D. Smith , He said that Green Bluff Drive was_ not
in good condition, the pavement is breaking up. He would like to see
the access road from Green Bluff Drive located farther to the north.
He had no objections to street lights at intersections, but doesn''t
glik want street lights along the road in this area. The lights would bloc1.
41111, views. He felt there should be a 30 foot setback along Glenmorrie
Development Review Board Meeting
July 2, 1984
Page 3
4111 instead of 15 feet as shown in the plans, He was concerned about
increased traffic and the size of lots facing his lot,
Rebuttal
Mr. Tahran said he basically agreed with many of the concerns voiced,
He agreed that street lights should be kept to a mini nun, lie located
the access road for Mr., Arnold, submitting a new exhibi t ( a topographic
tax map overlay, labelled Exhibit J)
Chairman Hutchins declared a five minute recess before Board discussion.
The meeting reconvened at 9 45 p.m.
The Board discussed the conditions necessary for approval. Mr, Wright
expressed concern that there should be continuity of geological
engineers on the project because of the unstable slopes. Followin;,
further discussion, including the variance to the Transit standard,
Mr. Eslick moved for approval of PD 5-84 with the following conditions;
1. That a reproducible duplication of the final plat: clearly
depict front, side, and rear yard setbacks as indicated on
Exhibit A for Lots 1-8, 10, and 12-17.
2. That the building envelope for Lot 11 be contracted by
111 increasing the rear yard by a distance needed to avoid the
unstable area described in the geotechnical report,
3 That the open space on the most southerly perimeter of the
site be eliminated. Theopen space area in Lots 2, 5, 6,
� 4, i
and 7 he increased as much as practicable to rei;rtin opal space
lost in Lots 9 and 11, and all the stream corridor be designated
as open space,
4. That the CC & R's restrict the removal of trees and disturbance
of understory plant material in the designated open space
areas, except for hazardous conditions.
5, That a tree cutting plan be submitted to staff before construction
and/or final plat approval, whichever is first. The cutting
plan show what trees over 8" in caliper will be cut for street,
utility, and dwelling construction. That no nx)re than 291
trees 8" in caliper be removed from the site (42%, of the total
number of trees shown on Exhibit B) ,
6, That Gl.enirorrie Road be improved to a minirnrn of a half street
of 16 feet wide paved area,. and a 4 foot sidewalk and drainage
to be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
7. That a four foot right-of-way be decicated along Glenmarrie Road.
410 8. That Green Bluff Drive be it roved to have a minimum 24' wide
pavement with a roadside ditch and 5 asphalt sidewalk,
Development Review Board Meeting
July 2, 1984
Page 4
9. That street lights along Glenrtorrie Road and Green Blutf Drive
he constructed as is standard with half street improvements,
10, That the street name "Glerrrorrie Court" be Chan 'ed to avoid
repetition,
11. That the applicant either provide consent of the private
utility companies to construct their lines beneath the sidewalk
or construct wider graded cross sections to accommodate private
utilities,
12, That a 10" water line be constructed in Glenrrorr,iMe Road and
in.. Green Bluff Drive at least to Lot 11 with the City paying
for the oversizing from 8" to 10"
13, That an 8" sanitary sewer be constructed in Green Bluff Drive
at least to Lot 11,
14, That a detailed grading and erosion control plan be developed
for the construction of all site improvaiients as per Sections
16,025, 16,030, and 16.035 of the Hillside and Erosion Control
Standard,
111, 15, That the applicant design driveways for critical lots to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director, and adjust lot
lines to confine the driveways to the lots they serve,
16. That adequate sight distance be provided in Gle mrorrie Road
at the intersection with Gletamrrie Court:,
17. That private utilities to the existing dwelling on Lot 14 be
clanged to underground,
18. That a request to separate fees for LID 190 be submitted to the
City Engineer, or the applicant pay the balance of the LID
assessment oared before the final plat is approved by City
officials,
19. That a soils engineer be retained for drainage, retaining walls,
cuts and fills, etc, for, all lot construction, and that the
information obtained by the soils engineer be included as part
of this approval.
20, That a geotechnical engineer,to the satisfaction of the engineering
sp
staff,. be retained to inspect and. control all onsite grading
and subdrainage.
rihe tivtion was seconded by Mr. Glasgow, and approved with lift'. Eslicky
Mr. Glasgow, Mr. Pulton, Iv. Wright, and Chairman ?Hutchins voting in
favor,
Development Review Board Meeting
July 2, 1984
Page 5
41/ Mr. 1slick moved for approval of VAR 12-84, variance to the Transit
Standard, Mr. Glasgow seconded the motion, and it tensed with Mr.
Glasgow, Mr. Eslick, Mr. Wright, Mr, Fulton, and Chairman Hutchins
voting in favor
P1) 6-84/VAR 13-84 - A. request by OTA1 , Inc, for the approval of a
Residential Planned Development consisting of 14 lots ranging in 'size
Trom 7, 80 to 9,325 square feet, In addition, the applicant requested
approval of two variances (VAR 13-84) : a variance to the Park and Open
deSpace Standard requiring 20% of the gross area of the residential
velopment be reserved, as open space, or a fee equal to the assessed
value of the required area, or a portion thereof, be paid to the City;
and, a variance to the Transit Standard requiring that ra hard surfaced
path be provided to connect the development to the nearest transit
facility. The property is located in an R-7,5 zone in Bryant Acres
between Pardee Avenue and Lakeview Boulevard.
Mr, Miniszewski presented the staff report, Staff recommended approval I
of the preliminary plat with 14 conditions; approval of the Variance
to the Transit Standard; and, denial of the variance to the Park and
Open Space Standard.
Ralph Tahran, QTAK, Inca 15110 Sti 13oones Ferry Road, spoke in behalf
411 o,E the application, He gave the details of the planned development,
explaining that the site was divided into two portions on which the
lot sizes differed because one half borders an existing residential
subdivision with larger lots, and one half faces an area zoned E,-5,
He said the entrance was planned for Mardee because the City did not want
access from Lakeview Boulevard, which is a collector street, He asked
that they not be required to put a pathway through the deve).opmet b because
this would cause a long corridor through the project after owners
fenced their individual lots to buffer them from the pathway traffic, He
also felt it would lower property values, Mr. Tahran said that paying
the fee in lieu of open space would be a financial hardship, adding to
the costs of the lots, and asked for approval of the variance to the
Parks and Open Space Standard,
I I
Michael Crump, 17653 SU Mardee Avenue, spoke, He said he had no
o53ectiona to the development, but had some concerns, He said Mardee
was a residential street with no sidewalks, and that the increased traffic
from this new development would create a safety hazard and decrease
the livability of the neighborhood, He asked that access be allowed
from Tateviet' Boulevard, Tie said that Mardee was in bad condition, and
that a pipe lay exposed in front of his home only inches below the
surface of the street (he thought it was a gas pipe) , and the pipe
could be dangerous if broken by construction vehicles traveling Mardee.
Mr, Crum said there were drainage problems in this area, and questioned
Ash the adequacy of dry wells, He requested lighing be the same as in his
subdivision.
Development Review Board Meeting
July 2, 1984
Page 6
George Rishel, 5243 Lakeview Boulevard, requested that the Board require
the walkway through the development. He said' he was not in opposition
to the development.
Rebuttal,
Mr, Tahran said that Clackamas County has jurisdiction over Mardee
Avenue, and that their standards are different from Lake Qswego, He felt
it was not fair for this development to put sidewalks along the entire
length of Mardee, but that their fair share was the portion they are
extending. He said that he has no control over County maintenance of
Mardee. Ne asked that the Board take heed of Mr. Crump's rtIllarks
about street lighting, and their develot'nr-nt be allowed similar lighting
to that along the existing portion of Mardee. He again requested that no
pathway be required through the development
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for
Board deliberation, The Board indicated a consensus that they did not
like the design of the development which divided the development into
two distinct lot size areas. They felt a rare unified design should be
used. Mr, ?illiod advised the Board that design of the development
was not an area in which the Board had discretion.
Following further discussion of the overall development and the variance
lip request to the Transit and Parks and Open Space Standards, The
Board's consensus was that the first two o were approvable, but that a
variance to the Open Space Standard fee in lieu of open space was no
` different than a recently denied request.
Mr. Bslick moved to grant the variance (VAR 13-84) to the Transit
Standard. The variance was approved with the condition that the project
property owners will form an LID with the surrounding property owners to
connect to the transit stop when a pathway system is planned for the area,
The motion was seconded by Mr. Fulton, and passed with Mr. Fslick Mr.
Fulton, and Mr, Glasgow voting in favor, and Chairman Hutchins and Mr,
` Wright opposed.
Mr. Glasgow moved to deny VAR 13-84, variance to the Barks and open
Space Standard. Mr. Lsli.ck seconded the motion, and it passed with Mr,
Lslick, Chairman Hutchins, and Mr Glasgow voting in favor, "r, Fulton
voted in opposition, and Mr. Wright abstained.
Mr. Glasgow moved for approval of FD 6-84 with the following conditions:
1. That the final plat have a clear notation indicating individual
t
` access to the Proposed lots from Iakevi.ew Boulevard. is
permanently restricted, All access to Lakeview to be from the
shared loop driveway,
• 2, That a 10 strip of land along Lakeview Boulevard be dedicated
to the City. The above dedication be shown on the final plat,
1f
Development Review Board Ileettrig
July 2, 1984
Page 7
110 3. That owners of the subject property require each lot owner to
sign a nonremonstrance agreement for road improvement proposals
along Lakeview ;Boulevard.
4. That sidewalk proposed along Mardee be located at the property
line and meander as needed in order to save trees
5. That the proposed sewer storm drainage easements be identified
on the final plat as public utility easements with their
specific functions identified.
6. That the final plat clearly show dimensioned front, side, and
rear yard setback lines for each lot consistent with the
preliminary plat.
7. That a landscape plan be submitted to staff showing additional
plantings in the open space buffer easement. '
8. That deed restrictions and covenants for Lots 1-5 of Block 1
state that no tree cutting, other than for hazard reasons, be
allowed in the open space/buffer area,
9. That a storm water drainage line be provided for Lots 1-5 of
Block 1, and be located in the 15' sanitary sewer easement
between Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 and Lots 4 and a of l lock 2
10. That a 3' crushed rock shoulder with 4t mild swale be added
along the section of Lakeview Boulevard fronting the project.
11. That lot lines 1 and 2 of Block 2 be adjusted so the proposed
storm water line can be located between two large trees to be
retained.
12. That a catch basin be provided in the future swale along the
Lakeview right-of-way to collect storm water and divert it to
the public storm water line in. Mardee Avenue.
13. That an 8" sanitary sewer and an 8" water line, or dimensioned
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, be through the
project from Lakeview Boulevard to the existing end of Mardee
Avenue.
The motion was seconded by Mr, WRight, and passed with Mir, Glasgow, Mr,
Wright, Mr. Fulton, and Chairman Hutchins voting in favor, Mr, Eslick
voted against the motion.
OTHER. BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions, & Order
The following findings, conclusions, and order were approved for
1p signature:
Development Review Board Meeting
July 2, 1984
Page 8
Second vote approvinfz signature (two 3-0 votes)
DR 11-84 VAR 8-8/f
SD 9-84 DR 12-84
Findings Approved for signature on first vote
DR 13-84 - Carbar-n, Inc
PD 3-84 Virgil Fogdall
DR 15-84 - A1ex Arseniev : Regina Markova
PD 4-84 & VAR 1.1-84 - Michael Fain
PD 2-84, Modi ficati on Associates
ADJOURN ,r
There being no further business, the itleeting adjourned at 1;06 a,m,
Respectfully ,,ti.Jbniitted,
ICr t;i Riitchcock
• Secretary
1110
t .
411
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
P DULY 16, 1984
The Development Review Board meeting was called to order by Chairman
Richard Hutchins at 7 : 30 p.m. Board members present were Chairman
Hutchins, Richard Sslick , John Fulton, John Glasgow, and Anthony
Wright . Lynn Takeuchi was excused. Staff present were City
Planners, Bob Galante and Gary Miniszewski; and, Secretary Kristi
Hitchcock.
APPROVAL OP MINUTES
Mr . Glasgow moved for approval of the minutes of ,duly 2, 1984. The
motion was seconded by Mr . Fulton, and passed unanimously.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr . Galante described the proposed draft of the Solar Access
Standard' sent to the Board from the Energy Conservation Advisory
Committee. If individual or Board concerns were available they
could be presented to the Committee for their Wednesday evening
4,1 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SV 2-84 - A request by Peter Doyle for approval of a 10 ' x 20 ' wall
sign which exceeds the area requirements of the Sign Code, for
DeNicola's Restaurant located at 4475 Lakeview Boulevard .
Mr. Galante presented the staff report. He said the sign was in
place, and the owner had been given a Notice of Civil Infraction.
Hegave the Board aphotograph of the si n as it exists (Exhibit E)
g
for their review. Staff recommended denial of the sign application
because the sign does not meet Code requirements, and other
businesses in the area have conformed to the size requirements.
Staff asked that the applicant be given five days to remove the sign
and apply for a new sign permit meeting Code requirements.
Peter Doyle, owner of DeNicola's Pizza, 4475 Lakeview Bdulevar
said he had been incorrectly informed by his sign contractor that
this sign met the City' s Sign Code because it was a window sign/ and
that he had allowed it's placement following that information. He
said he had since reviewed the City's Sign Code and found this was
in error. He asked the Board to allow the sign to remain in place
because it's replacement would be expensive, it would leave a very
large bare expanse of window, and a neon sign would not be as
attractive.
III No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing
for Board deliberation. Board discussion centered on the
possibilities of the present sign being acceptable, and a consensus
Development Review Board Meeting
Alk July 16, 1984
Page 2
{ was.reached that because the sign was far over the size allowed by
Code and was not compatible with other signs in the area, the sign
should not be allowed. It was suggested that Mr . Doyle put a sign
on the facade of the building which would be much more visible from
the street than the window sign Mr . Eslick moved for denial of SV
2-841 allowing the applicant thirty (30 ) days to remove the sign and
apply for a sign permit meeting the sign code. Mr. Wright seconded
the motion, and it passed unanimously.
SV 3-84 A request by Jim Reynolds, for the Laker Club, for
approval of a ground sign approximately 42 square feet in area and
11 feet 2 inches in height for Lake oswego High School, located at
2501 Country Club Road+
Mr . Galante presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval,
of the sign with the condition that the sign be located at location
A' as shown in Exhibit C, and that a dimensioned site plan be
provided to illustrate the relationship of the sign to the property
line. He presented the Board with a dimensioned site plan, Exhibit
E, which had just been submitted by the applicant. The plan
dimensions in relation to the property line needed to be verified.
410 Jim Reynolds, 4155 South Shore Boulevard, representing the Laker
Club, described the type of sign planned, and answered questions
for Board members. In response to questioning regarding lighting
for the sign, he said that backlighting had been chosen because it
was a better protection from vandalism than a separate light+
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing
for Board deliberation. Following discussion, Mr. Wright moved for
approval of SV 3-84 subject to the following conditions recommended
by staff:
1. That the sign be located at location `A as shown in Exhibit
C.
2. That a dimensioned site plan be provided to illustrate the
relationship of the sign to the property lines .
The motion was seconded, and passel unanimously.
PD 7-84/VAR 15-84 A request by Richard Brainard for approval of a
Planned Development consisting of 16 lots ranging in size from
18,200 square feet to 53,800 square feet for detached single family
dwellings. In addition, the applicant requested variances to the
Transit, Parking, and Access Standards; variances to cul de sac
sizes; a variance for driveway widths; and, a variance allowing
4,0 exclusion of sidewalks.
Mr. Miniszewski presented the staff report. He drew the Board's
attention to exhibits posted on the wall pertaining to the project
(Exhibit B, soils analysis; Exhibit C, slope features; Exhibit S,
grading plan; Exhibit G, preliminary plat; and, Exhibit T, special
features map) . Mr. Miniszewski said the steep slopes found at the
site Were' the,;most important features for consideration. Most of
Development Review Board Meeting
July 16, 1984
1110 Page 3
the variances requested by the applicant are related to the
applicant's attempts to develop the site for dwelling construction
while creating the least impact on the slopes by keeping the
building envelopes out of the areas of over 50% slope. He reviewed
the variance requests for the Board.
Mr. Miniszewski discussed previous action on the site, and gave the
Planning Commission' s reasons for denying the initial application.
He discussed the differences between the present application and the
prior application (OOPS 1-83 ) . Staff recommended approval of PD
7-84/VAR 15-84 with eleven (11) conditions,
Richard Brainard, 813 SW Alder , Portland, planning consultant,
introduced the members of the development team. Mr. Brainard said
that although this is an R-15 zone, all the lots are larger than
required by that zone. The developers have attempted to avoid
siting dwellings on the unstable slopes. The homes planned will be
comparable to those existing homes surrounding this site. They
had no objections to conditions recommended by staff . Mr. Brainard
said the new street located in the flatter area minimizes
disturbance of the natural topography. The open space (30.01% of
the site) includes all the stream corridors on the site, and
includes 25 feet clearance on either side of the Centerline of each
stream bed. The existing cul de sac could be be designed to allow
fire trucks to pull in and turn around. He said they would work
with the Engineering Department to construct a turn around
satisfactory to both the Engineering and Fire Departments (see
Condition 7 of the staff report) .
Gary Buford, consulting engineer, 415 North State street, discussed
the engineering aspects of the project. He said the maximum depth
of cuts is estimated to be 8 to 10 feet. The entire street (with
the exception of two fills) is to be cut. He said the detention
facility computations have been submitted to engineering staff.
Water service will be provided through the City of Lake Oswego,
either from their reservoir, or through an agreement with Skylands
Water District. That agreement is being negotiated at this time by
the City. He answered questions from Board members. He said the
retaining wall is to protect the existing residence downhill from
the site, and the location of the retaining wall affects the I
location of the road. Mr. Buford said the project is designed to
keep the homes as close to the road as possible to minimize impacts
on slopes. That was the reason for the requested variance for
driveways .
` Rich_ 1tienle, consulting geologist, amswered Mr. Wright's questions
regarding the geotechnical study. He said they have conductd
All extensive geological reconnaisance and soil studies of the site, and
41, feel comfortable to make recommendations for development of the
site, He said it is not necessary to put a limitation on heights of
cuts and fills, but to 'put limits on the slope of cuts and fills and
the type of drainage required for cuts and fills. Some of the fill
currently on the site that may be unstable will be removed, and when
necessary, replaced by engineered fill.
Development Review Board Meeting
411 July 16, 1984
Page 4
Opponents
Oglesby H. Young , 177485 South Viewpoint Lane, said he doesn' t
object to the development of this property, but is concerned with
the number of dwellings proposed. He listed his conc;erns:
1. Access on View point Lane being adequate.
2. The houses willnot be comparable to sadjacentlots
. thoseon l_
because the lot sizes for this develo :ment are smaller .
p
3. Where will the water come from if 5kylands Water District
will not supply water.
4 . Danger of hillside slippage.
5. If this number of variances need be requested, perhaps the
project is' not in compliance. Mr . Young objected to all the
variances requested except those to the Transit Standard and
sidewalk requirement.
Mr. Young said, that a portion of the existing cUl de sac is a part
of Dr. Kirk 's driveway, akZd that Dr. Kirk had informed him' he was
not interested in enlarging 'lthe cul, de sac. He asked for denial of
the applications for the above reasons.
41, Rebuttal
Mr. Brainard said there were no deed restrictions against the
development of this property as far as water rights are concerned.
Skylands Water District has the right to deny 5-7 water rights to
this property, and the others are allowed* The water will come from
the City, and will be available whether the City reaches an
agreement with the 5kylands Water District or not. The existing
street will be improved to full City standard (half-street
improvements) on their side the full length of their property. He
said most of the lots in this development will be larger than the
surrounding lots . He said they have provided additional access to
the site. Mr . Brainard asked Mr. Kienle to clarify the
geotechnicals aspects of the project regarding landslide potential.
Mr . Kenle said that most of the geotechnical work done since Mr .
Redfern's report has been done to address the concerns raised in
that report. He said studies done after Mr. Redfern's have been
extensive, and have addressed the landslide potential thoroughly.
In answer to a question from Chairman Hutchins, he said that old
fill on the site is a thin layer, and will be removed. The fill is
a result, for the most part, of grading done for logging roads.
Gary Buford said he had been working with city staff regardig
water. He said that a question had been raised as to the ownership
of the land of the existing' cul de sac. It is a public roadway, and
e excavation for this roadway will be made on public property.
Douglas Goodman, 995 South Skyland Drive, requested to be heard
regarding the project. His request was approved by Chairman
Hutchins, and he testified regarding lot sizes surrounding the
Development Review ' Board Meeting
July 16, 1984
Page 5
and the width of Viewpoint Lane. He s9id he Was a board member of
Skylands Water District, and the Board had voted at its last meeting
tO not cooperate with the City of Lake Oswego. regardinq a water
service agreement.
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing .
He declared a short recess. The meeting reconvened at 10 :30 p.m.
with Board deliberations.
The Board discussed the aspects of the project, aspects of the
previous Planning Commission denial of a similar application, and
concerns raised by opponents.
The Board then discussed each variance separately, and following
consensus, the following motions were made:
- Mr Eslick moved that VAR 15-84 , variance to the Transit
Standard which requires that a hard surfaced path be
provided to connect the project to the nearest transit
facility, be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Glasgow, and passed unanimously.
41, Mr. Eslick moved that VAR 15-84, variance to exclusion of
sidewalks required by Code along Viewpont Lane, be
approved . The motion was seconded by Mr. Fulton, and passed
unanimously.
- Mr . Eslick moved to approve VAR 15-84 , variance to allow
driveway widths to be more than one-half the length of
street frontage for Lots 3,4,5, and 13 . The motion was
seconded by Mr. Fulton, and passed unanimously.
- Mr . Eslick moved to approve VAR 15-84, variance to allow a
1,000 foot cul de sac instead of a cul de sac not more than
300 feet as required by the Site Circulation Standard. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Glasgow, and passed unanimously.
- Mr. Eslick moved to approve VAR 15-84, variance to allow a
45 foot radius turn-around at the farthest end of the east
cul de sac instead of a 50 foot radius as required by Code.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Glasgow, and passed
unanimously.
- Mr . Eslick moved to deny VAR 15-84, variance to allow a 35
foot radius turn around at the farthest end of the west cul
de sac instead of a 50 foot radius, as required by Code, with
a waiver of the six month waiting period to reapply. The
410 motion was seconded by Mr . Wright, and passed unanimously.
- Mr. Glasgow moved to deny VAR 15-841 variance to the Parking
Standard with a waiver of the six month waiting period to
reapply. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fulton and passed
unanimously.
2
Development Review Board Meeting
July 16, 1984 1
Page 6
Mr. Eslick moved for approval of VAR 15-84, variance to the
Access Standard requiring all lots to have at least 25 feet
of street frontage ( to 15 feet for flag lots 3 and 15) . The
motion was seconded by Mr. Glasgow, and passed unanimously.
Board discussion of PU 7-84 ensued. The setbacks requested by the
applicant were discussed. Mr. Eslick and Chairman Hutchins
expressed concern that the setbacks were not large enough, and felt
the hearing should be continued so that they could have time to
determine if this question was in the Board's jurisdiction. There
was no legal counsel present to give advice on the subject.
Following further discussion of the application, Mr. Fulton moved to
approve PP 7-84 with the contitions recommended by staff, 1-11;
1. That a reproducible duplication of the final plat clearly
depict front, side, and rear yard setbacks as indicated on
exhibit G.
2. That a detailed grading and erosion control plan be made for
the construction of all site improvements as per Sections
16 .025, 16 .030, and 16.035 of the Hillside and Erosion
Control Standard.
410
3 . That the above grading plan, together with street and
utility construction drawings, be reviewed and commented on
by the soils engineer and approved by the City Engineering
Department prior to the recordatin of the final plan, and
prior to any construction on the site.
4. That a final street lighting plan, including photometric
data, be submitted to the City for approval.
5. That water for the upper 14 lots be pumped from 8ergis
Reservoir along Skyland Drive and Viewpoint Lane, possibly
tying into the Skyland Water District reservoir.
6. That the City be reimbursed for its contributions to the
sewer and water improvements in Upper Cherry Lane through
LID 167 and LTY) 190. The amount of the contribution to be
established by determining the original share of the
property and escalating such original share to the current
construction cast per Engineering News record index.
7. That a turn-around space for fine trucks be located at the
point where the proposed street accesses then existing
Viewpoint Lane and designed to City standards, if the curb
radius is reduced at the cul-de-sac at the east end of the
41, existing section of Viewpoint Lane.
8. All retaining walls constructed along streets be located
outside public right-of-way, except for any improvements in
the existing right-of-way for the existing section of
Viewpoint Lane.
t r
Development Review Board Meeting
Amk July 16, 1984
Page 7
9 . All cut slopes shall be 2 : 1 or less, except. for cuts to
improve the existing right-of-way of Viewpoint Lane. It
must be shown to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director that cuts of steeper slopes than 2:1 will be stable
and maintainable.
10. That the information and recommendations found in the
geotechnical reports (E)chibits u and S of the July 2, 1984
staff report) be used in the design and construction of the
project including retaining walls, stormwater drainage and
grading for new streets and existing street improvements.
11. That a geotechniCal engineer be a member of the project
cOnstruction team to consult with others and periodically
observe costruction activities involving site grading and
drainage work.
Mr . Wright seconded the motion, and it pasued with Mr . Fulton, Mr .
Glasgow, and Mr. Wright voting in favor, and Chairman Hutchins and
Mr . Eslick voting against the motion.
GENERAL PLANNING
i ill1
The Hoard discussed holding a workshop on Standards and procedures.
The date will be announced at the next meeting. Board members
commented on the proposed Solar Access Standard.
OTHER BUSINESS -, Findings, Conclusions, and Order
The Board approved signing of the findings for PD 5-84 and I'll 6-84
6 as written.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman Hutchins adjourned the
Development Review Board meeting as 1: 11 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
KKristi Hitchcock
Secretary
III kh2498P
t 1 '. 1t
i
fi
', j
i
i;.
;
. \ ,
,, ,, „ 1 ‘,,,,,
, \n., -
,,,
; ; A \:
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGOVINE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
WORKSHOP MINUTES
41oAugust 1, 1984
The special meeting (workshop) of the Development Review Board
was called to order. at 7:05 P.m. by Chairman Richard Hutchins,
Other Board members present were Richard Eslick, John Glasgow,
and John Fulton. Anthony Wright had an excused absence. Staff
present were Sandi Young, Planning Director and Bob Galante,
Planner .
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The 1984 Community-Wide Survey of City residents Was distributed
to the Board . The Board then addressed the "New Business"
portion of the agend which was the purpose for the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
A . Staff Reporting : The Board agreed that it was necessary to
address all items regarding an application where conflicting
evidence existed in the record or was presented by
opposition at the hearing. The Board felt that it was
important that the staff report clearly spell out anY
conditions of approV41, but that it was not usually
necessary to read the staff report or make too elaborate a
presentation. The Board also asked the staff to make their
job easier by providing a checklist or by listing the
ordinance reference for items of concern listed in the staff
report. The staff agreed that the information could be
Placed in the body of the report or in its margins.
B. Time Constraints: Chairman Hutchins asked the staff to
describe the hearing format and time constraints at the
beginning of the "Public Hearing" portion of each agenda for
the benefit of the appplicants and audience. The Board
asked the staff to restrict the number of items to be
considered where feasible. The Board agreed to also state
that meetings would adjourn by 11: 30 p.m. and that no new
item would begin to be considered after 11: 00 p.m.
C. Making a Motion: After considerable discussion, the Board
agreed that they should not get "hung-up" on wording of
motions and that it should be the staff ' s responsibility to
provide adequate wording (to wordsmith) in the staff reports
and in the Findings prepared in support of the motion. The
Board stated that motions should be consistent with any
previous Board action and wording. They discussed the
impact of City Council actions on appeals which help set
policy and may affect future motions of the Board.
w
DevelopmentReview Board
~ `
Workshop Minutes
`
Augqst It 1484
^ page 3
D. Variances: 'The Board believed that applicants should be
required to do a betteK job proving hardship. They believed
that variances should be the exception rather than the
rule---at least as the present test for hardship is
applied. They believed; however , that in the absence of
conflicting evidence many variances should be approved.
E. Min-utes: The staff was asked to include more individual
comments of Board members so that their position was
adequately reflected in the record. The staff agr,(,,ed that
this could be done.
F4 Standards : While the Board believed that a numbor of
chang?s to the Standards Were neqessaryp they felt that
certain ones such as the Transit Standard and Park and Open
Space Standard should receive more immediate attention.
They recognized that the Wetland Standard was being revised
by staff and that the Conservancy Commission was
recommending changes to the Open Space Standard. Specific
changes to Development Standards would be discussed at the
next meeting.
The next Development Review Board workshop meeting was scheduled
for September 12f 1984 at 7: 00 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 25 p.m. by Chairman Hutchins.
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert Galante
Development Review Planner
,
�
„,
, . _
.lb .
..
. ,
, .
11110. `'I
z
I.
. , ip J
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
411 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
AUGUST 6, 1984
The Development Review Board meeting was called to order, by
Chairman Richard Hutchins at 7: 34 P.M. board members present
were Chairman Hutchins, Richard Eslick, John Fulton, and John
Glasgow. Anthony Wright was excused. Staff present Were City I,
Planners Bob Galante and Stan Tidman and Secretary Krist
Hitchcock .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minutes was delayed until later in the Meeting. The
minutes of July 16 , 1984 were then, approved with an Amendment
addingthe fact that the Board had discussed the previous
Planning Commission denial of an application for the site of PD
7-84.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Galante said he had received a letter pertaining to DR 16-84
from Ed and Nancy Hachette, and that it would be entered into
the record during that hearing.
III A letter was received from Homesite Development requesting
continuation of the hearing for S1) 19-84 et al to August 20 in
order for them to submit material in order to complete their
application.
A letter was received from Richard and Marjorie Wysong
requesting continuance of their appeal of SD 12-84 until the
first Development Review Board meeting in January, 1985. They
were requesting continuance because of the possible formation of
an LID in their area which may address some of the concerns
which were outlined in their appeal .
I A petition by Michael Crump requesting that his testimony in the
minutes of the July 2, 1984 Development Review Board meeting on
PD 5-84 be corrected . Mr . Crump's request was considered later
in the meeting, when it was approved unanimously.
1 A petition from the people at Hollyfield Village requesting more
parking. Mr . Galante said their parking was one space below
Code requirements, and that when they were informed of the
1 problem, they had requested to add more than one space as they
needed more parking.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr . Galante went over hearing procedures for the audience.
Chairman Hutchins, with the consensus of the board, rearranged
the agenda in order to hear the two requests for continuance
first.
Development Review Board Meeting
41) August 6, 1984
Page 2
SD 19-84, SD 21 -84 , SD 22-84 , VAR 19-84 , and VAR 20-84 - A
request by Barbara M. Bragg and Richard and Virginia Walters to
adjust two (2 ) parcels of 35,700+ square feet and 14,400+ square
feet into parcels of 30,000 square feet and 20,384 square feet
each in an R-10 zone. In addition, the owners requested
approval of two minor partitions, The first would allow Ms.
Bragg to divide the 30, 000 square foot parcel into three ( 3)
parcels of 10,000 square feet each. This review included a
Class I variance to vary the minimum frontage requirement on a
public street from 25 ° to 0 ' for one of the parcels. The second
partition is to allow the Walters to divide the 20 ,384 square
feet into two ( 2) parcels of 10 ,084 square feet and J0 ,300
square feet. The properties are located along the east side of
an unconstructed portion of Iron Mountain Boulevard .
Mr. Glasgow moved to continue SD 19-84 to August 6 , :1984; as
requested by the applicant . The motion was seconded by Mr ,
Eslick and passed unanimously.
SD 12-84 - An appeal by Richard L. Wysong to a staff approval of
a minor partition. The appeal asked to eliminate Conditions 4
through 11 . The location of the property is 18477 Bryant Road,
III Mr . Eslick moved to continue Si) 12-84 , appeal of a minor
partition, per the appellant' s request for six months to the
first meeting in January, 1985. The motion was seconded by Mr .
Glasgow, and passed unaniously.
DR 18-84 - A request by Jim Maletis for Ladd Estate Company for
approval of a facade remodel for the Lake Grove Shopping Center
located at the intersection of Bryant Road and l3oones Ferry Road.
Mr. Galante presented the staff report . Staff recommended
approval of the facade remodel with the submission of additional
lighting specifications. He passed out a building material
sample and photographs (Exhibits I and K)
James C. Maletis, spoke in behalf of the application. He said
the shopping center has been in existence for 10 years, and is
in need of repair . He said Howard Hermiston was retained as
( color designer for the facade remodel . He answered questions
for Mr. Eslick about colors and signage .
No one spoke against the application* and Chairman Hutchins
closed the public hearing for Board discussion. Board members
indicated a consensus that the facade remodel would be an
improvement for the Lake Grove Shopping Center, and that they
had no problems with the application. Mr. Eslick moved for
•
approval of DR 18-84 as submitted, with the condition that
lighting data for soffit lighting be provided to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The motion Was
seconded by Mr . Glasgow and passed unanimously.
vow-
— AIt. r:"T -,y# ,,v" r;07 SiO "i !'
Development Review Board Meeting
411 August 6, 1984
Page 3
SD _20-84 and. VAR 21-84 - A request by David Farr and Monte
Brigham, agents for Larry and Lois Read, to partition a 12 ,122
square foot lot into two parcels of 6,258 square feet and 5 ,864
square feet each in an R-5 zone. The request also includes a
Class ZI variance to vary the required 10' side yard setbacks on
both proposed parcels to 5 feet and 7 . 8 feet. The location of
the property is on Rosewood Street.
Mr . Tidman presented the staff report. lie said this partition
will create two parcels, each of which will exceed the R-5 zone
area requirements. Staff believes the applicant has not clearly
justified the variance criteria as they have not shown
unnecessary hardship, and have not shown that the variance is
the minimum necessay to make use of the lots. Staff recommended
approval of the partition request, subject to five conditions.
Staff left approval or denial of the variance request to the
Board's discretion.
Monte Brigham, agent for the applicant, spoke in behalf of the
application. He said they are asking for the variance in order
to allow enough space (width) for two single family residences.
He said that without the variance, the homes built on these lots
Owould only be able to be 25 feet wide, and the owners '
alternative would be to build a duplex or to try to' sell the lot
as a 12,000 square foot lot. He said the cost of selling the
unpartitioned lot would be prohibitive in this area, He located
the partitioning request on Exhibit B for Mr . Glasgow.
No one else spoke and and Chairman Hutchins closed the public
hearing for Board discussion. Board discussion indicated a
consensus that the variance request was not the minimum
necessary to make use of the lots, and that unnecessary hardship
had not been adequately shown. Following discussion, Mr. Eslick
moved for denial of VAR 21-84. Mr . Glasgow seconded the motion,
and it passed unanimously.
Following discussion of whether the partition met requirements,
and a determination that Exhibit D could be used to identify the
partition request , and Mr . Eslick moved to approve the
partitioning with the five conditions recommended in the staff
report as follows:
I
1
1 . A survey of the two lots as depicted on Exhibit D be
registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor 's Office.
2 . Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) be specified on a
legal instrument for title transfer and be recorded with
Athe Clackamas County Clerk ' s Office.
3. Evidence of the above survey registration and legal
instrument recordation be provided to the City Planning
Department. No building permits can be issued, until
this evidences provided.
'4_.,.. � `X.. ..-.rt R 'Sff" �r k 1 4 .�,.. r .K^ •f "Mrc' ,rt
Development Review Board Meeting
y August 6, 1984
Page 4
4. The applicant install half street improvements including
10' of pavement, 3' gravel shoulders and street lights
required by code.
5. Storm drainage plans for on-site facilities for both
lots be submitted with application for building permits.
The motion was seconded by Chairman Hutchins, and passed
unanimously.
DR 17-84 - 'A request to construct a swimming pool and associated
facilities for the Oswego ;Lake Country Club, which iu located in
an R-10 zone. The location for this proposal is an area south
of Fairway Road near its intersection with Iron Mountain
;;, ..ulevard.
Mr . Tidman presented the staff report. He said the uwimming
pool is a conditional use and had been approved by the Planning
Commission (Cu -84) with conditions. Those conditions involved
hours of operation, noise, lighting, and prohibited the use of a
diving board. Of specific interest to the Board were the
conditions dealing with road and drainage construction and
landscaping. He discussed requirements for approval of this
41, application, and presented additional exhibits. He gave the
Board copies of a letter from the Department of Human Resources,
Health Division, which reviewed the permits and plans for
construction of the swimming pool. Staff recommended approval
of the application with six conditions .
Daryl Mason represented the Country Club. He said that in
scaling down the drawings of the proposed pool and landscaping ,
ommissions had been made. He said the Country Club would submit
the original plan in color. He said they had never intended to
put in a sidewalk . They planned to gravel the area under which
the new 10" drainage pipe would be put in, and this would serve
as a walkway. He explained the location of the catch basin, and
said water will drain downhill to the new parking lot. Mr .
Mason said they will submit an irrigation and grading plan to
the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The Country
Club requested that they not be required to put in a wood fence
because of the high maintenance and that it would probably need
to be replaced in five years. They asked to be allowed to have
a fence constructed either of exposed aggregate or concrete. He
answered questions for Board members, saying that they would
agree to meet all the conditions recommended by staff with the
exception of their request to not be required to put in a
concrete sidewalk and that they be allowed to have a fence of I
concrete or exposed aggregate rather than wood.
Ed Hueni, Anthony Construction Company, said the plans have met
the requirements of the State Health Division for fencing, and
that one of those requirements was that the fence surrounding
the pool be unclimbable. He said they would like to construct
' the fence out of concrete as this was the best material to
inhibit climbing,
z q.
4
,ro '9.4, f�;�,r a 'X.r i :: �'r.: .1' ..'0 a..
4 Development Review Board Meeting
August 6, 1984
Page 5
Allan Arsenault, manager of the Lake Oswego Country Club, said
they will comply with the Board 's wishes. They wish to begin
construction as soon as possible. He presented the Board
pictures of the road and general area showing landscaping;
(labelled Exhibit R) .
Mr. Eslick asked if there was a requirement that the walkway be
concrete rather than gravel. Mr. Tidman read the applicable
section of the Code(Site Circulation Standards - Bikeways and
Walkways) . The path should be either concrete or asphalt in
accordance with the Transit Standard, unless specifically
approved by the Public Works Director.
Sadie Stoutenburg of Lake Oswego, said she was for the swimming
pool . She was concerned that construction of a concrete pathway
along the roadway would even further encroach on a street which
was not very wide. She requested the City consider lowering the
speed limit by the Country Club to 25 'miles per hour so that she
could exit her driveway safely. Her home is adjacent to the
area in which the pool is to be constructed. She was concerned
that the pool might be open during late night hours. Chairman
Hutchins read the Planning Commission' s condition placed on the
• conditional use. That condition required the pool to be closed
by 9:U0 p.m. or dark , whichever comes first .
Pamela Blake, said she was in favor of the pool construction.
She said 9:00 p.m. was a reasonable hour for pool closure. She
asked for clarification of the pathway being on public or
private property.
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public
hearing for Board deliberation. Mr. Glasgow said he agreed with
the idea of the concrete wall . Mr . Tidman said that in the
Transit Standard of the City's Development Code, the standards
for approval require a hard surfaced path is required to connect
a development to the nearest bus stop. It does not specifically
require concrete or asphalt . Board members indicated they felt
a hard surface such as concrete would be more appropriate.
Chairman Hutchins said the Planning Commission approval of the
conditional use said "a finished road edge" , but did not
specifically say the walkway should be concrete. Chairman
Hutchins said he had reservations about the drainage and
walkway, and how it tied in with the walkway. The Board
discussed the drainage. Mr. Eslick commented on the possibility
of obstruction of vision on the corner . He said the fence
should be an aggregate finish, which would help break up the
mass . Following further discussion of the walkway, drainage,
• and landscaping, Mr. Eslick moved for approval of the Country
Club swimming pool, DR 17-84 with the following conditions:
1. That a revised site plan be submitted to staff '
satisfaction specifying alignment of the hard surface~
(concrete or asphalt) walkway between the Country Club's
property line and the edge ofEairway .Road's pavement.
r i4 0 •
ry : r
4 04. �Apii� 6 •,Y�t 7 9 �• A1,4
Development Review Board Meeting
4,0 August 6, 1984
Page 6
The distance between the property line and edge of
pavement must be 10 feet. The walkway shall be
Physically separated from the existing pavement
( separation to be by curb or landscaped separation) .
2. That a revised landscape plan be submitted -to staff ' s
satisfaction indicating the location of plantings within
the 10 foot setbacl and within the 10 foot distance
between the property line and edge of pavement ,
1 3. A drainage plan be submitted to the satisfaction of the
Department of Public Works.
4. An irrigation plan be submitted to the satisfaction of
staff .
5 . A grading plan be submitted to the satisfaction of
Public Works staff .
6 . A dimensioned drawing indicating layout of the parking
lot access and number of parking spaces be submitted to
the satisfaction of Public Works staff.
l 7. A concrete wall with aggregte finish be used to surround
the sundeck in order to integrate the development with
the residential character of the area.
The motion was seconded by Mr . Fulton and passed unanimously.
Chairman Hutchins declared a five minute recess. The meeting
was reconvened at 10 :07 p.m. with the continuance of public
hearings.
DR 16-84 A request by First Western Development of Oregon,
Inc. for approval of a 45,528 square foot shopping center. A 5
foot variance to the 25 foot yard required for a structure
adjacent to a residential zone is also rquested for the site
located on the east side of State Street between View Court and
Wilbur Street,
Mr . Galante presented the staff report. He said that staff had
received all required plans 'except the irrigation plan. A
development schedule has been received (Exhibit V) . Mr. Galante
listed the conditions made by the Planning Commission in their
approval of the zone change for this site. He said that in the
minute: of that Planning Commission meeting the Commission had
also requested that left turns from the development to Wilbur
street be prohibited in order to inhibit shopping center traffic
• from parking in the residential area. Staff recommended
approval of the appliction with 12 conditions.
Mr. Galante paraphrased a ,,letter received'from Ed and Nancy
Rochette (Exhibit Q) in which they requested: 1) That the
Development Review Hard note the condition of the Planning
N"""b/, ;t -" y E d .s qi c • t 1
• •
� y , $ • .. .,Nab a " 'ye c •t s F`ie141 , ` _ a,., .;,, "+ dt n 4, M
Development Review Board Meeting
III August 6, 1984
Page 7
Commission prohibiting left turns from the development to
Wilbur; 2) Urged that as many trees as possible be left on the
site; and, 3) Asked that the Board make it a condition of
approval that no fast food restaurants be allowed in the
shopping center.
Additional, exhibits submitted were:
-Photos of the site illustrating some of the homes that will
be removed , Exhibit N
-Sign criteria, Exhibit 0
-Development Schedule, Exhibit V
-Example of tree grates to be used around proposed trees,
Exhibit W
-Revised landscape plan, Exhibit T
-Revised Site Plan, Exhibit s
-Section of screening of mechanical units, Exhibit X
-Colors and materials board, Exhibit P
Proponent
Scott Shanks, Architect it -
w h CDA Inc. ,
spoke e
rin behalf of the
application.
licatio Hes
pp n. discussed the conditions of approval
recommended by staff. Mr . Shanks said that the applicants
basically agreed with the conditions except for the condition on
signage. They requested that they be allowed the signage on the.
sign band as they have submitted it because it would allow for
better visibility. The 24" letters allowable under the Sign
Code would look out of place on the 42" facia. Mr. Shanks said
that the spaces would be easier to lease if tenants felt their
businesses would receive more exposure by having larger 30"
lettering.
Mr. Shanks discussed the variance request. He said they are
putting in a 15 foot buffer between the development and the
residential area, plus they will have a five foot sidewalk at
the rear of the building before the building begins. The
applicants feel that 20 feet is an adequate buffer, and that an
extra five feet will not effectively further buffer the
residential area. Re pointed out there is an six foot high
laurel hedge running the entire length of the building.
Dee Thomason, owner of the property, said this development will
be good for the east end of Lake Oswego, and will be compatible
with the community. He requested approval.
Doug Dwight, 57 View Court, said he and his wife favor the
project. He requested a fence at the rear of the property to
separate the commercial area from the residential area. He said
• the trees on the site: are possibly diseased, and are. not worth
saving. He requested that View Court, which is being vacated be
left as is, and not be widened to a two-way street. He said he
and his neighbors currently use the street as a driveway, and
that further in#provements are not necessary.
9
. \ i •
• •
Development Review Board Meeting
4 August 6, 1984
Page 8
No one spoke in opposition, and Chairman Hutchins closed the
public hearing for Board deliberation. The Board first
discussed the application, DR 16-84 , and the twelve conditions:
They specifically discussed signage, and whether this business
should be allowed a variance from the sign dimensions when other
businesses have not, and whether a precedent Would be set by
such an approval.
f The Board discussed preservation of existing trees, and the
possibility of requiring an arborist to determine the trees
he ith before requirements for preservation were maciu.
Following further discussion, Mr. 4s1ick moved for approval of
DR 16-84 with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant demonstrate a positive action by
Council on the street vacation action, which preserves
adequate access to nearby properties prior to the
issuance of building permits .
2. That textured (split-faced) concrete block be used on
all building elevations.
3 . That site lighting be as provided by the applicant, but
the internal photometrics be modified to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director .
4 . That the sign lettering be 24" in its vertical dimension.
5. That the ground sign be reduced to a maximum of 50
square feet.
6 . That a parking table update be provided for each future
change of tenant/use which requires a greater parking
ratio .
7. That accessways , traffic control signage, and street
improvements be provided in conformance with the
Planning commission action (ZC 7-84) and the state's
planned street improvements, as well as Exhibit M
(Traffic Impact Analysis) .
8. That an irrigation plan be provided prior to the
issuance of building permits .
9. That a tree cutting plan be submitted to staff, and that
an arborist be retained to report on the health of
existing trees and on specific measures to save trees
during construction (as shown on the applicant ' s Exhibit
41) 5) .
10. That Storm drainage plans be provided to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director .
Development Review Board Meeting
111 August 6► 1984
Page 9
11 . That a soils report be provided prior to the issuance of
building permits. •
12 . That noise sources be identified and that mitigation
measures be provided to the satisfaction of staff.
13 . That left turns from the shopping center to Wilbur be
restricted to the satisfaction of the City Traffic
I Engineer.
Mr. Glasgow seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously,.
Mr. Eslick moved to approve the variance associated with the
staff report. Mr . Fulton seconded the motion, and it passed
unanimously.
General Planning
Other Business Findings, Conclusions, and Order
PD 7-84 - It was moved, seconded, and approved unanimously to
approve signing of the findings with the amendments as made by
• the City Attorney, and to amend page 12 to reflect the Board ' s e vote correctly.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman Hutchins adjourned the
meeting at 12:20. p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
risti Hitchcock, ,
Secretary
•
•
9
0006z/kli , .
• ,
ll
I
t �
E; i.
,
r�� � ( l �'� ����
CITYOFLAKE WEGO r , 1
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
August 20, 1984
The Development Review Board meeting was called to order by
Chairman Richard Hutchins at 7: 33 p.m. Board members present
were Chairman Hutchins, John Glasgow, Richard Eslick, and John
Fulton. Anthony Wright was excused. Staff present were. City'
Planner Bob Galante and Secretary Kristi Hitchcock .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr .> Sslick moved for approval of the minutes of August 6, 1984
to F1 amended on page 4 , adding the second and vote on the
motion . Mr. Fulton seconded the motion, and it passed
unanimously,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr . Galante said a letter had been received from the applicant
for SD 19-84, requesting that the application be withdrawn.' The
letter would be submitted at the time of that hearing .
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Hutchins said that since a letter had been received
4 from the applicant for SD 19-84, requesting withdrawal of the
application, the hearing will not be held. The letter was
accepted by the Board .
SV 4-84 - A request by BrUce Hershman for approval of a 3 foot
by l5 fact wall sign for Handy Auto Supply which will ` be1ocated
at 428 State Street.
Mr. Galante reported that staff recommended approval of the sign
application since it met requirements Of the Sign Code. He said
the applicant had indicated he wished to modify his sign
request, and would address the modification in his testimony.
Bruce 'Hershman Hand Auto Su 1 428 State Stree4, spoke in
behalf of $V 4-84 . He sa d they would like to amend the
application to include raised styrofoam letters that would say
"Handy Auto Supply" above the sign.
Mr . Galante said that if 8" letters were added above the sign,
(allowing room for spacing) it would have an area of 60 square
feet. The Sign Code allows signage up to 70 square feet, so the
request would meet code requirements,
Mr. Hershman said he would place the letters 4" above the sign,
which would keep the sign Within allowable square footage. He
Ach said the letters will be white above the sign, and the sign will
% have white letters on a red background in answer to questioning
Development Review Board Page 2 August 20, 1984
by Mr . Eslick . After consideration, Mr Hershman changed the
color of the letters above the sign to red.
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public
hearing for Board deliberation. Mr. slick moved to approve SV
4-84 with the letters above the sign to be red as in the
background of the wall sign, and the total signage area to be 4
feet by 15 feet. Mr. Glasgow seconded the motion, and it passed
unanimously.
GENERAL PLANNING
Mr . Galante gave an update on some of the large projects
recently approved by the DRB,
OTHER BUSINESS Findings, Conclusions, and Order
The following findings were approved for signature by unanimous
votes:
DA 17-84-166 Approved as written with staff
to monitor the project with
regard to the Board' s
direction that there be at
least 10 feet between the
410 property line and the Fairway
Road right-of:--way.
$0 20-84/VAR 21-84-167 As written
DR 18--84-169 Correction on page :l
OR 16-84 Correction page 2
COUNCIL ACTIONS
Mr. Galante said the Council was interviewing candidates for the
vacant positions on this Board and the Planning commission this
evening.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman Hutchins adjourned the
meeting at 8 : 12 P.m.
Respectfully Subtstitted,
l
Kristi Hitchcock, Secretary
411
U018z/k'h
f
'I
`�
The Development Review Board Workshop scheduled for
Wednesday, September 12, 1984 at 7: 00 was cancelled
due to lack of a quorum,
II
I
•
•
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO a"� 1
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
September 5 , 1984 '
The Development Review hoard meeting was called to Order by
Chairman Richard Hutchins at 7 : 31 p.m. Board members present
were Chairman Hutchins, John Fulton, John Glasgow, and Anthony
Wright . Richard Eslick was excused. Staff present were city
Planners Bob Galante and Stan Tidman and Secretary 'Kristi`
Hitchcock,
APPROVAL OF~ miND 8S
M . Glasgow moved for approval of the minutes of tho August '20,
l984 meeting . Mr. Fulton seconded the motion, and it Passed'
1 with Mr . Glasgow, Mr . Fulton, and Chairman Hutchins voting in
favor. Mr. 'Wright abstained.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SV 5-84 A request by Gary Allan for a variance to allow two
ground signs located adjacent to the side let lines about 75
feet apart . The applicants wished to vary the distances
required for siting ground signs. The businesses are located At
594-598 State Street
41/ Mr. Galante presented the staff report . He said that staff
recommended denial because the applicant has not shown that the
two signs are needed to provide signage as allowed other
businesses in the community. Uthe businesses did nut have
similar signage.
Gary Allan, Oregon Sian Corporrn r spoke in behalf of the
request. he said that other busrrtesses in the area currently
have pole signs which are closer to the property lines than 10
feet ( Lake hone Hotel and MBA Properties) , lie said the colors
proposed are a brown background with reo copy/ and that panel is
reversed, with brown copy for the other sign. The sign is
backlit . He said the spa sign currently on thesite will be
redone for the new business, and will blend with the other sign'►
Mr. Allan said that the sign closest to the building will be 15
feet away, and that the distance between the two signs is just
over 75 feet . He said exact determination of the property limes
is difficult as no markers are in place. In answer to a
question from Mr . Glasgow, Mr . Allan said that the alternative
to having two signs on' the property would be to go to a sign of
approximately 75 square feet to give visibility to all three
businesses.
4111
Development Review Board Minutes
August 5, 1984
page ,
II,
John Christian, Cake Oswego tent-A-Car. , said that the Exxon
station also has a sign which is not 18 feet away from the
street . Mr. Christian said his Main concern is to save money .
He had already invested in a sign for his other location, and
would like to use that sign. The alternative would be to order
another sign which would cause him to Pay for both signs. He
said the caterer located here will only have access from the
southwest corner of the site, and needs a sign that Will direct
traffic to the business. He said the sign he had already
ordered cost him approximately $4 , 000 .
No one e;tse spoke , and Chairman Hutchins closed the public
hearing for Board deliberation. Following discussion centering
on the financial hardship, tew signs in the surrounding area,
and size of the signs, Mr. Ulasgow moved for approval of SV 5-84
( the variance allowing the two ground signs) With the condition
that they be within the property Lines. Mr. Wright seconded the
Motion, and it passed unanimously.
DR 17-84, Modification - A request by Oswego Cake Country Club
to clarify and/or modify condition No. 1 (OR 17-84 ) involving
the construction and separation of a walkway along ) airway Road
4 in conjunction with construction of a swimming Pool.
Mr. Tidman reported that the applicants were asking for
clarification and possibly a modification of condition 1 from
the Board' s approval of OR 17-8.4 at the August 6, 1984 hearing.
He said that staff and the applicant had met to discuss meeting
the conditions of approval, and the appi.icant and staff had not
reached agreement as to the Board's direction for Condition 1,
which required a hard surfaced path physically separated from_
the„ Fairway Road . Mr. Tidman said that three alternatives had
been discussed ( Exhibit S) .
1d Huene, representing Oswego Lake Country Club, spoke. He said
that of the three alternatives, the Country Club preferred an
asphalt path with buttons to separate the road from the path.
He said that such a pathway was being constructed along Iron Mt.
Boulevard as part of a new development . The rural character of
this area would better be served by such a path, and that the
neighbors had commented that they would prefer this method over
Other alternatives. He said a concrete path with curbing would
be prohibitive in cost
Allan Arsenault, Manager, of, Oswego Lake Country Clubs said the
area does not lend itself to a ' hard surfaced path with curbing.
They would like the path to blend in with the surroundings as
much as possible. There are no sidewalks along Iron Mt .
41, Boulevard or Fairway Road.
Sadie Stoutenberg adjacent property owner, said she would
prefer no sidewalks at all along Fairway Road because she has no
place to park except along the roadside. She said her main
i
Development Review Board Minutes
August 5, 1984
Page 3
driveway enters from Iron Mt . boulevard, but that is difficult
for access and exit because of the speed of traffic. She said
the C'obt Office has asked her to move her mailbox to Fairway
Road because of traffic problems .
Ed Huene, said that adding a walkway on the side ot< Fairway 'Road
will actually widen the pavement, and it will improve the
current drainage situation.
Ralph ldie, president. of Oswego Lake Country Club, spoke in
behalf of the application . He said they' would prefer he hard
surfaced pathway, but that they would like to see their, pool
finished, and Would do everything possible.
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public
hearing . Board discussion centered on the Planning Commission
order requiring a finished road edge and path. In addition, the
discussion included Development Review Board findings requiring
a hard surfaced Pathway to moot the Transit Standard and the
path's physical separation from the road.. Following discussion,
Mr. Glasgow moved to approve DR 17-04, Modification, Exhibit S,
Scheme 3, with proposed drainage as approved by the Public Works
Director . Mr . Fulton seconded the motion, and it pax�ueti
unanimously.
GENERAL PLANNING
The board' s workshop, origLnally scheduled for this evening, was
rescheduled to Wednesday September i ., at 7 :00 p.m. This was
because the new Board member had only been recently appointed,
and the Board wished his attendance at that workshop.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business., Chairman Hutchins adjourned the
meeting at 8: 56 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
# ¢
Krist~i Hitchcock ,
Secretary
qmp
0O40x/k,h
it
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
DEVELOPMENTeREVI IEW
BOARD
4 MINUTES `�•
The meeting was called to order by. Chairman Richard Hutchins at
7 : 34 p.m. Board members present were Chairman Hutchins , Anthony
Wright , John Fulton, John Glasgow, and Vern Martindale, Richard
Eslick was absent . Staff present were City Planner , Stan
Tidman, Deputy City Attorney, Mark Pilliod, and Secretary,
Kristi Hitchcock .
APPROVAL OP MINUTES
Approval of the minutes of the September 5 , 1904 Meeting and the
August 1 , 1984 workshop was deferred until later in the agenda ,
when the minutes were approved as written .
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr . Tidman reviewed the public hearing procedures for the
audience.
PD 8- 4 & VAR 22-84 - A request by John Bierwagen for approval
• of a four lot residential planned development in an R-15 zone
s request a involves a variance to the Transit Standard.
The location of the requested actions is Lots 1 and 10 , Spousta
Addition
Mr. Tidman presented the staff report. He said the applicant
had established a need for the requested variance to the Transit'
Standard, and that staff recommended approval of that variance .
Mr . Tidman then discussed the planned development application .
Be said that staff 's major concern was the applicant 's plan for
open space. They have designed the open space to be located on
enlarged, existing berms paralleling Childs Road and along two
strips on the east and west boundaries of the site. The berms
will be landscaped, will provide visual amenities and buffer the
development from traffic noise, dust, and light. Staff
disagreed with the applicant 's open space plan using the
strips . Staff maintained that the strips did not meet the
intent of the parks and Open space standard as they merely
provided a landscaped rear yard and provided no general
benefit . Mr . Tidman answered questions from Board members .
Proponents
Marlin DeHaas, DeHaas & Associates , AGC Building, Wilsonville,
represented the applicant, John ►3ierwagen. He passed. an aerial
photograph of the site (labelled Exhibit I ) to the board. He
Development Review t3oard Minutes
September 17 , 1984
page 2
said the owner had originally considered a minor partition to
create the ;lots, but in order to use the lot area average to be
allowed four lots , he chose the planned development.
Mr . DeHaas responded to Staff 's recommended conditions of
approval . -tis major concerns were with:
Condition 1 Open space plan revision or payment of fees
in lieu of open. space.
Mr. Dehaas said their intent was to meet the Open Space
criteria . He said they had discussed the list of criteria
to be met with staff and had thought (after the
pre-application) the plan submitted with the application
(Exhibit C) met With staff 's approval . The site has no
Distinctive Natural areas and is fairly flat, so the they
chose the two berms fronting Childs Road to be landscaped
for open space , the existing trees planted by Mr . kiiergWagon
on one side of the property, and another smaller strip on
the other side of the subdivision . They meet the full 2O
requirement .
condition 3 Mr .. DeHaas asked that theynot her required
to note on the final plat that access for
the lots fronting. Childs Road be
prohibited. He requested this action be
completed in some other form.
Condition 5 Payment of sanitary sewer hook-tip tees -
Mr. DeHaas objected to this charge.
condition 10 Mr, Dehaas said Mr, aierwagen had a petition
condition 11 to be submitted when he testified which was
signed by many of the present rresident$ of
Spousta Addition indicating that they do
not want street lights (with the exception
of one street light at SW' 35th court and
Childs Road) ar street trees .
John i3 erwagen, 15123 SE McLaughlin Boulevard, Milwaukie, owner
of/ he properEy, said that the 1c61s in Spousta addition were so
large because of soil problems on the upper end of the
development. The parcels for development in this application
are the last in Spousta . He submitted a petition circulated and
signed by many residents in Spousta (Exhibit J ) requesting that
there be no street lights, except on the corner of 35th court
and Childs Road, and no street trees along SW 35th court. Mr.
Bierwagon also gave the Board picutres of River Run (gxhihit
AMK x ) . He asked the Board to waive the requirement for street
qgp trees . He also asked for a waiver of the sidewalk requirement,
saying that the petition submitted also contained signatures of
8 of the 10 owners of the lots along Childs Road,
Mr. Bierwagen further requested waiver of the soils report for
two reasons: 1 ) the east side of the subdivision is the urban
pevelopntent Review Board Minutes
September 17 , 1984
41, Rage
growth boundary; 2 ) the sidewalk will end at a dangerous curve
on Childs Road .
A discussion of the need for the requirement of a soils report
ensued . Mr . Pilliad said that under the Development Standard 13 ,
the applicant is rerl uired to submit further inform ti n; if their
site is found on the Comprehensive Plan Map indicating soil
instability.
Op onents
Bob Reynolds , 19547 SW 35th Court, spousta Lot #107 , said only
six of the .10 res3.der is in spousta living on 35th Court signed
the petition . His Mayor objection was the request for a waiver
of sidewalks along Childs Road. He said the school bus stops at
;pousta on SW 35th Court . Traffic Makes the road dangerous, and
that further additions of homes will make the traffic even
worse, and eventually, there will be a need for Sidewalks the
length of Childs Road.
Glenda cook , 19468 SW 35th court, said that the berms planned
for open space are dangerous because they are so high a car must
I pull out into Childs Road to see. She asked that the sidewalk
be required along Childs Road .
Mindy Klann, 19565 SW 35th Court, said she had never seen the
petition presented by Mr . Bie wagon, She said that it appeared
Mr . Bierwagon Was asking for variances, and that if he did not
wish to comply with the requirements for a. planned development,
he could partition this parcel into three lots . She said she
would prefer sidewalks along Childs Road, street lights, at
least at the intersection of 35th Court and Childs Road, and
street trees along 35th Court . She said her major concern is
that the open space will be maintained .
Rebuttal
Mr . 17eHaas said he understood the, broad map which ihdicated
areas with soil problems. He felt the map was too broad, and
that this area should not be indicated as a problem area on that
map. He said the City would rather have the maintenance of Open
Space done by the property owners than the City have
responsibility for that maintenance . He asked that if Board
discussion brought in any new issues, he be allowed to testify
at that time.
Mr , Tidman commented on some of the issuos raised during the41, .
public hearing regarding conditions of approval zecommended by
staff:
1 . Open Space Staff requested additional justieicatioft
for the a licantts open space plan after application
was submitted. The applicant provided additional
Development Review Board Minutes
September ,17 , 1984
41, page 4
information along with a preliminary landscaping' plan.
Planning staff drafted a report in support of the open
space plan , but it was revised after Department review.
2. Final ,Plat This condition merely serves notice that
the action is a major Development ,, and required a more
detailed procedure than a minor partitioning.
3. Access Note - Staff agreed that a reproducible plat with
the access note would be acceptable .
5 . Payment of sanitary sewer hookup fees Mr. Tidman gave
the Board and applicant copies of a memo from the Public
Works Department summarizing the fees required . (Mr .
pilliod reviewed "Zone of Benefit" in tOC 40 .
7 . Sidewalk requirement - chapter' 44 of the Subdivision
Code calls for a sidewalk to be provided on at least one
side of a through street . The utility standard requires
sidewalks in addition t'n other improvements if a:
development must connect to any utilities .
III 10 . Street lighting Exhibit F shows location of Lighting
Standards . Mr . Tidman said the City Would like to see a
street light to the satisfaction of Public Works staff.
11.. Street Treed - The Landscaping Standard requires street
trees along lots abutting the street for major
development applications .
Chairman Hutchins clarified the variables 'between partitioning
and a planned development: He said that if the applicant wished
to vary from the Development standards involved with the planned
development, the public hearing would be continued. Applictions
for those variances along with new notice sent would be sent.
The variances would be street lights , side walks, and street
trees. tie closed the public hearing for Board deliberation.
The Board first discussed VAR 22-84 , variance to the Transit
standard . Following consensus, Mr. Glasgow moved to approve VAR
2284, ' Transit Standard variance. Mr. Fulton seconded the
motion, and it passed unanimously.
Board discussion then moved to the planned development . Board
members discussed the requirements for street lights, street
trees, the 'requirement of a soils report, requirement of
sidewalks, and the open space. Board members differed in their
Ask feelings towards the requirement for a soils report, street
trees, and open space. Mr. Glasgow supported requirements for
street trees, a soils report, and the applicant's plan for open
space. Mr * Fulton supported these same requirements. Mr .
Wright disagreed with the r.equirei ent for n soils report. Mr .
Hutchins said he would support the applicant 's Open space plan
,,4
Development Review Board Minutes
September 17 , 1984
41, page 5
because it met requirements of the park and Open Space Standard,
but felt that open space should be for
p
within private yards . Public betterment and not
Mr . Tidman explained that the soils report requirement was
something that could not be Waived . Mr . Pilliod read the Code
section describing the soils report requirements.Following
discussion of a continuance for application for variances, Mr .
DeHaas was asked what direction the applicant wished to take .
Ke indicated they would not like the public hearing continued,
and would comply with requirements as they stood if necessary.
Following a consensus of the Board being reached, Mr . Fulton
moved to approve PD 8-84 with conditions 1-10 as discussed and
amended (Condition 1 from the staff report was deleted) :
1 . Final plat based on Exhibit C be prepared and submitted
to the City in accordance with LOC 49 .330 .
2. A reproducible copy of the final plat have a clear
o n indicating ess t e n ratio i di y acc o th lots from
Childs Road is prohibited .
41/ 3 . Sewer easements be identified on the final plat .
4 payment of sanitary sewer hook-up fees be coordinated
with the City Department of public Works.
5 . Deed restriction and covenants for proposed Lots 1,2,3,
and 4 cite responsibility for planting and maintenance
of the open space/berm areas.
5. A 5' wide sidewalk be planned and constructed in
accordance with Public Works Department specifications
along the development 's Childs Road frontage. The
construction of the sidewalk be completed or financial
guarantees be provided before City officials sign the,
final plat
7 . A unified sanitary sewer and water extension plan be
submitted to and approved by the city Department of
public Works .
8 . A soils report (for all proposed lots) be prepared by a
professional soils engineer or engineering geologist
addressing the adequacy of the soils found at the site
to support single family dwellings .
! Ill 9 . A street lighting plan (showing at least one street
light at 35th Court and Childs Road) be submitted and
approved by the City Department of Public Works.
10 . street trees of a uniform species and location shall be
required to be identified before building permits are
Development Review Board Minutes
September 17 , 1984
410 Page 6
issued for each proposed lot . The street tree
requirement shall be included in the deed restrictions
and covenants .
The motion was seconded by Mr . Wright, and passed with Mr .
Fulton, Mr . Wright, Mr . Glasgow, Mr . Martindale, and Chairman
Hutchins all voting in favor .
GENERAL PLANNING
The Board scheduled a workshop for Thursday, October 11 at 7 : 00
p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
Minutes
Mr . Fulton moved to approve the minutes of September 5 , 1984
as written . Mr . Glasgow seconded the motion, and it passed
with Mr. Fulton, Mr . Glasgow, Mr. Wright and Chairman
Hutchins voting in favor . Mr . Martindale abstained as he
was not yet on the Board at the September 5 meeting.
• Mr . Glasgow moved to approve the minutes of the August 1 ,
1984 Development Review Board workshop. The motion was
seconded, and passed with Mr . Wright and Mr . Martindale
abstaining from the vote.
Findings, Conclusion, and order
DR 17-84-197 - Mr . Glasgow moved for approval of the
findings for DR 17-84-197 . The motion was seconded by Mr .
Wright, and passed with Mr . Martindale abstaining from the
vote .
ADJOURNMENT
The business of the meeting being completed, Chairman Hutchins
adjourned the meeting at 10 :14 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Kristi Hitchcock, Secretary
0
IN
•
.w,.._.., .,� ,»SF„ti� ,.n�r,.. .�s u. yea... m�,��.,€. �, �hH .., „�, _« ax x=.,. .�,�r,ni ii+�„ +,$a Y�� »id"�,,,ryrc+ .. �. _ ..r+ a_. aa•
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO o '
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
October 1 , 1984
The Development Review Board meeting was called to order by
Chairman Richard Hutchins at 7 : 35 p.m. Board members present
were Chairman Hutchins , John Fulton , Anthony Wright, Richard
Eslick, and Vern Martindale. John Glasgow was excused. Staff
present were City Planners Bob Galante and Gary Miniszewski,
Deputy City Attorney Mark Pilliod, and Secretary Kristi Hitchcock ,
1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr . Wright moved to approve the minutes of the September 17 , 1984
Development Review Board meeting as amended. The motion was
seconded by Mr . Fulton, and passed with Mr . Wright, Mr . Fulton,
Mr . Martindale, and Chairman Hutchins voting in favor . Mr .
Eslick abstained as he was not present at that meeting.
A second vote was held for approval of the minutes of the August
1 , 1984 workshop, The approval was upheld with Mr . Eslick , Mr.
Fulton, and chairman Hutchins voting in favor , and Mr . Wright and
Mr . Martindale abstaining.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None
411 Mr . Galante reviewed hearing procedures,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PD 3-83, Modification - A request by William Headlee to remove
condition 11 of the previous approval of the Green at Glenmorrie
project, PD 3-83 . Condition 11 specified that a sidewalk along
the south side of Burnham Road be 30" away from the street
curbline. With the approval of the proposed modification, the
sidewalk will adjoin the curbline . The subject property is
located south of Oswego Terrace Apartments .
Mr . Miniszewski presented the staff report. He said that fire
hydrants, street lights, and signs next to the curb (which the
Board had expected when the condition was made requiring the
sidewalk to be offset from the curb) were not needed along the
south side of Burnham Road. Therefore, there is no need for the
30 inch separation of the sidewalk from the street . Staff
recommended approval of the applicant 's proposed modification
with two conditions pertaining to street trees, whose location
would be affected by moving of the sidewalk .
Development Review Board Minutes October 1 , 1984 Page 2
011 Proponent
Bill jerber , Gerber Gardens, spoke in behalf of the applicant .
He said they were asking that the sidewalk be allowed next to
the curb. This was a result of his and others recommendation.
His reason for the recommendation is that from a landscaping
standpoint, a 30 inch strip is hard to maintain. Street trees
also tend to lift the sidewalk with their root system. They
wish to move the street trees into the easement between the
sidewalk and properties . In answer to a question from Mr +
Eslick , he said the sidewalk would be constructed of concrete.
( He added that i f , in the future, this` condition was necessary,
the Board could use wording which allowed a minimum five foot
clearance between an obstruction (such as fire hydrants , lamp
posts,, ` etc. ) allowing for Meandering of the sidewalk to avoid
such obstructions.
opposition
Clara J. Owen, 161Y.50 South Pacific Highway, Lake Oswego ,
objected to eliminating the condition requiring the 30 inch
strip between the sidewalk and the road because she felt the
sidewalk would not he safe so close to the road. She read a
letter written by herself for the record (labelled Exhibit C)
Ask stating her objection, and her concern regarding relocation of
INF the street trees Ms. Owen asked that any square footage saved
by moving the sidewalk would not be used to allow another
residence in this development.
Rebuttal,
Mr . Gerber said he understood Ms . Owen 's concerns. He said the
street trees will remain. They will be to the south of the
sidewalk to prevwnt glare. Burnham Road only serves the
apartments and this development. Trees in small confined areas
sometimes lift the surrounding pavement (sidewalk ) . They feel
having the trees away from the sidewalk instead of a 30" strip
will take care of that problem and still provide the amenities
of street trees .
In answer to a question from Chairman Hutchins, Mr . Gerber said
the trees would be on the, bank about 3 feet from the sidewalk .
In response to a question from Mr . Eslick , he said the trees
would be planted about 8 feet from the curbline.
Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for Board
deliberation, Following discussion, Mr . rslick moved for
approval of Pr 3-03, Modification, with the conditions
recommended by staff as follows:
1. That the proposed street trees be planted at least 2" in
dill caliper and 40 feet on center along Burnham Road.
a043z/kh
Development Review Board Minutes October 1 , 1984 Page 3
01/ 2. That the above street trees be planted within the street
easement line and that there be restrictions attached to
the deeds for Lots 29, 30 , and 31 stating that the trees
not be cut except for safety reasons , and if they are
cut, they be replaced.
DR 20-84 •- A request by John Harper for J .D.H. Realty Company
for approval of a 60 unit condominium project located on a 4 .89
acre lot at the northwest corner of McNary Parkwy' and
Eagle Crest in Mountain Park .
Mr . Galante presented the staff report . He said that although
there are many new submissions by the applicant , their
application was initially complete. Staff had requested
additional information of the applicant , and they had complied
with that request .
Mr .. Eslick asked that the record reflect that the Hoard Would
like all information from applicants far enough in advance of a
hearing so it could be reviewed thoroughly.
Mr. Galante said that many notices sent to those people residing
within 300 feet of the project had been returned as
undeliverable by the Post Office. The incident had been
Ask discussed with postal officials, and the notices resent . The
INF majority of addresses had been correct .
New exhibits introduced were:
Exhibit T Revised Site Plan
Exhibit U Revised Landscape Plan
Exhibit V Revised Electrical, Plan
Exhibit W Revised Utility plan
Exhibit X Revised Site Access
Exhibit Y Revised Elevations
Mr . Galante then reviewed the project and the modifications
which had been made by the applicant. He answered questions
from Board members concerning specifics of the project .
, Proponents
Ken Lundgren, architect for the project spoke . He said the
applicants have made every effort to site the buldings so as not
to obstruct views of existing residences . They have attempted
to site the building so that there will be minimum impact to the
property. He explained the modifications, which were mainly
made to minimize impact on existing residences' views and to
meet concerns raised by staff. He submitted photographs of the
• 0049z/kh
Development Review Board Minutes October 1 , 1984 Page 4
II/ type of light fixtures they planned ( Exhibit Z ) . Mr . Lundgren
answered questions raised by Board members.
He said they had been informed that the trees they planned on
the northeast corner of the site would be too tail at mature
height and would block views of uphill residences. He requested
that they be allowed to use a shorter species in this location .
In response to a question from Mr . Eslick regarding the
differences between the applicant's presentation and the revised
plans, Mr . Lundgren said they have revised their plan further
upon discussion With neighbors in an attempt to avoid blocking
views as much as possible .
Mr . Lundgren said some of the changes made would be lowering
trees, relocating building 9 lowering roof pitches to 4 : 12
pitch for all units, and lower street elevations a foot. He
answered questions from other Board members .
Dave Alternett, Chairman of the Mt. park Architectural
Committee, said that the applicants had spoken three times
before their committee, and met the committee 's aesthetic
concerns . He said that the Board of Directors had met September
21 , 1984 and approved the project with the requested
improvements . A copy of those minutes will be sent to City
ilk staff . Mr . Alternett said the committee is in favor of
everything proposed.
Opposition
David Dougherty, 70 Oswego Summit , said he was present at this
hearing mainly to gain information . His concerns were with the
site section described as line 'CC' , the safety aspect of the
street which is posted with a 25 mile per hour speed sign, and
with the walkway.
Tom McDowell , owner of Tax Lots 201 and 202 in the city of
Portland which are to tEe north of this project, was concerned
that the setback from the property line be maintained at 30
feet. He questioned the map, Exhibit At because it did not show
the City of Portland boundary. (Mr. Galante said this map was
old, and that present tax maps show which area is in Portland
and which is in Lake Oswego. ) Mr . McDowell said that his view
would be blocked by buildings below him, and asked that the type
of trees planned be replaced by a lower growing variety as
mentioned by the applicant.
Bill Rousey, 12426 SW 134th, Portland, Tax, Lot 189 ,' saia his
concerns were the same as expressed by Mr . McDowell .
0049z/kt,
Development Review Board Minutes October 1 , 1984 page 5
111 Rebuttal
Mr . Lundgren, summarized their intent was to minimize the
impacts of this project on existing residences. He said that
Mr . Harper had made every effort to contact adjacent property
owners and work out problems ,
John Harper , representing J.D.H. Realty coom�m??any��, explained that
he had been on Mr. McDowell 's desk , and tFithe view should not
be blocked totally. He said a small portion of the view would
be blocked, but the majority should still remain intact.
Pat Moore asked regarding the views from the Oswego Summit units
being 'blocked . Mr. Lundgren respondedto his questions.
No one else spoke and Chairman Hutchins closed the public
hearing for Board deliberation . Following input' from all Board
members , Mr. Eslick moved for approval of DR 20-84 with the
following conditions discussed by the Board, with staff to
determine exact wording in order to maintain continuity with
previous Development Review Board conditions .
1 . Elevations to be finalized to the satisfaction of staff,
AM 2. That Unit 39 be relocated to the Southwest portion of
cilip the site.
3 . That street lighting, including lighting the pathway to
the bus stop, be provided to the satisfaction of staff
4 . That final street, utility, and drainage plans be
provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director , illustrating street grades reduced to minimize
those areas of 15% slopes
5 That Unit 40 will be lowered one foot by revising the
grading, and that the ridge line he lowered an
additional foot by revising the roof pitch, and that the
roof pitch of all units be consistent
6 . That the final design of mailboxes , trash enclosures,
and other street furniture be submitted to the
satisfaction of staff, and that the walls of the trash
enclosure match the retaining walls of the site.
7 . That new planting of trees along the north property line
to be of a scale and height that will be compatible with
the buildings and other landscaping and that they have a
mature height of not more than 30 feet to preserve the
views of Lots 201, 202, and 189 . The revised landscape
Allk plan shall be submitted to staff's satisfaction.
1111. 0049z/kh
Development Review Board Minutes October 1 , 1984 Page 6
8P That a phase line be provided on both the site plan and
the landscape plan illustrating the phasing and the
treatment of the remaining vacant property .
9 . That the building completion schedule be 12 months from
the date of issuance of building permits.
10 . That an irrigation plan be provided prior to issuance of
bulding permits.
The motion was seconded by Mr'. Martindale and passed With Mr.
Eslick , Mr . Martindale, Mr . Fulton, Mr . Wright, anti Chairman
Hutchins voting in favor .
GENERAL PLANNING
chairman Hutchins reminded Board members that a workshop is it
scheduled for Thursday, October 11, 1984 at 7:00 p.m* in the
City Manager 's office. Chairman Hutchins asked that all Board
members attend if possible .
OTHER BUSINESS - Findings , Conclusions, and Order
Mr . Eslick Was excused as he was not present at the hearing to Allh
which these findings pertain. The Hoard unanimously approved
signing the findings for Pb 8-84/VAR-22-84-200 .
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Hutchins adjourned the meeting at 10: 16 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kr is ti Hitchcock
Secretary
li
110
0049z/kh
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES October 15 , 1984
410
The Development. Review Board meeting Was called to order by
Chairman Richard Hutchins at 7 : 31 p.m. Board members present
were Chairman Hutchins, Richard Eslick , vern Martindale, John
Fulton, John Glasgow, Anthony Wright , and new member Curtis
Finch. Staff present were Bob Galante, City Planner; Mark
pilliod, Deputy City Attorney; and, t<risti Hitchcock , Secretary.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the minutes of October 1 , 1984 was delayed until
later in the meeting .
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
DR 21-83/SD 27-83 - Michael parich , Architect for approval of
items submitted to satIsfy Conditions 1, 2 , and 3 required tp be
brought back under unfinished business for an industrial park
development located on Jean Road,
Mr . Galante said the three conditions of approval required of
the applicant were:
41, 1 . Parking data to illustrate no conflicts between the
loading and parking areas and to illustrate that a 1
space/300 square foot ratio was provided.
2. Additional signage data including dimensions .
3 . Development, schedule.
He said the sign data has not been illustrated, but that the
applicant Would address that, in his testimony. The parking
allows one space for 302 square feet, and the building
requirement is one for 300 square feet. Staff recommended
acceptance of the square footage since the difference was
minimal .
Mike Parrich, 1231 NE Oleander , Hillsboro , spoke . He gave the
details for the sgin, saying that it would be the same profile
as the previous site development sign.
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public
hearing.
Mr . Fulton moved for acceptance of all three items . Mr . Eslick
seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously;
410
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES October 15, 1984 Page 2
410
1-8. - request byJackStevensfor approval of a
DR 2 � A S pp 3200
square foot addition toa concrete black warehouse structur.e
located at 17505 Pilkington Road ,
Mr. Galante reported that staff recommends preservation of two
16" fir trees to the west of the proposed addition. This will
save two significant trees and blend the building to the
landscaping . He said this addition should be coordinated with
the already approved development. Staff recommended, approval of
the proposed addition with seven conditions. In response to a
question from Mr . Wright, Mr . Galante said the staff normally
recommends a compition schedule dated from issuance of building
permits .
Jack Stevens , SW Kelok Road, spoke in behalf of the
application . He said staff 's recommended conditions were
acceptable with the exception of Condition l which requires the
preservation of the two trees . He said that the recreational
vehicle storage yard is only an interim use and they expect to
develop the back of the lot ili the future. The two trees
recommended to be saved would be in that location . He said they
are replacing 29 of the 34 trees requested to 'be cut with new
trees. Be requested a compromise allowing the replacement of
trees which would be , cut, or significantly Changing the size of
410 replacement trees in that area . Mr . Stevens answered questions
for Board members
NO one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public
hearing for Board deliberation . Discussion centered on allowing
the trees to be cut or requiring their preservation. It was
suggested by M . Finch that Condition l could be amended to
allow removal of the two trees at a later date if furthe?;
development occurs . The staff agreed with the Board that some
prevision should be made so that future office space would be
compatible with the existing exterior treatment of the
structure. Mr . Glasgow moved for approval of DR 21-84 with the
following conditions:
1. That tree cutting for 32 trees to be approved and that
the landscape plan be modified to illustrate the saving
of two 16" fir trees to the West of the proposed
addition. Removal of the two fir trees will be
considered by the Development Review Board when
expansion to the west occurs,
2 . That an easement for public access over the 8 ' pathway
be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director .
411
Doc. 0055x
1
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES October 15, 1984 Page 3
410
3 . That the 8 ' pathway be illustrated on the site plan.
4. That a nonremonstrande agreement be provided for future
improvements to both Pilkington Road and Willow 'Lane.
5 , That lighting be provided to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director .
6 . That drainage plans be revised to the satisfaction of
the Public Works ]Director.
7 . That a more definitive development schedule be provided
to the satisfaction of staff.
8 . That the applicant provide evidence that the County
process to eliminate the lot line between Tax Lots 1500
and 1600 has been completed and recorded.
9 That the plans be revised to illustrate that the
exterior treatment of future office space Will be the
same as existing office space .
The motion was seconded bY' Mr . Finch and passed unanimously.
l
DR 22-84 - A request by W.L. Brown, _Architect, acting as agent
for the Lake Oswego Corporation for approval to expand the
office above the patrol boathouse and to enclose an existing
C boat bay at the Lake Oswego Corporation office and marina at 700
McVey Avenue .
Mr . Galante presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval with two conditions. Mr. Galante answered questions
for Board members .
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public
hearing for Board deliberation. Board discussion centered on
compatibility of the office and marina structures. Several
Board members felt the roof designs should be tied together bar
having them both be shakes instead of one being shakes and one
being 'metal. Mr. Fulton and Mr. Glasgow did not believe that
this should be within the Board's jurisdiction to review.
Following discussion in which it was determined that these
elements of design could be considered by the Board/ Mr. Glasgow
moved for approval of DR 22-84 with the following conditions.
1 . That the entrance sign design be provided to the
satisfaction of staff.
2. That a revised development schedule be provided to the
satisfaction of staff.
Doc. 0055z
7,VELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES October 15 , 1984 Page 4
3 . That the metal roof be replaced with a shake roof .,
The motion was seconded by Mr. Eslick and passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
MINUTES It was moved, seconded, and passed to approve the
minutes of October 1 , 1984 as amended on page 5 to reflect.
that the roof pitch of all units be consistent . Mr. Eslick
and Mr , Finch abstained from the vote.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER
It was moved, seconded, and passed to approve signing of the
findings for DR 20-84 with the change made in the minutes to
be reflected in the findings ,
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman Hutchins adjourned the
Development Review Board meeting at 9: 18 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
4110 iz4) :2Yz.,,-Ztl„.1().,# 1/1(1.,
Kristi Hitchcock
Secretary
i
III
Doe. 0055?
t>
.
0
I
M
...
•
No Development Review Board meeting November 5, 1954.
No agenda for the meeting clue to Planning Commission continuance.
410
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
k
► ' M !
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES November 19 , 1984
The Development Review Board meeting was called to order at 7: 33
p.m. by Chairman Hutchins. Board members in attendance were
Chairman Hutchins , Anthony Wright , Vern Martindale, John Fulton,
Curtis Finch, and Richard Eslick . John Glasgow was excused.
Staff present were City Planners Bob Galante and Stan Tidman,
Deputy City Attorney Mark Pilliod, and Secretary
Kristi Hitchcock ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the minutes of October i5 , 1984 Was delayed until
later in the meeting,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VAR 26-84 - A request by Kenneth and Ruby Sewright for approval
of a Class II variance to vary the required 20 foot front yard
setback in an R-7.5 zone to 6 feet. The location of the
property is 146 Sixth Street (TM 2 lE 10AB, TL 5500 ) .
Mr. Tidman presented the staff report. He first read a letter
411 from Mr . and Mrs. Sewright stating that they would be unable to
attend the hearing for their application and designating Ellen
Campbell Jones as their representative for the hearing. Staff
recommended approval of the variance request.
Ellen Campbell Jones, 122 SW sixth Street, Lake Oswego, spoke in
behalf of the application. She said that none of the neighbors
had voiced concerns with the request, and that the carport would
be a benefit to the neighborhood, in that cars would be parked
li inside the carport instead of in the driveway.
No one spoke in opposition to the request , and Chairman Hutchins
closed the public hearing for Board deliberation. Following
discussion, Mr . Eslick moved for approval of VAR 26-S4 with the
following conditions*
1 . Deed restrictions be written into the title instrument
to:
a. Reference this land use application -- city of Lake
Oswego Planning Department File No. VAR 26-84;
b, Specify that the carport is not to be enclosed.
2. That the architecture be complimentary to the existing
imh structure.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES November 19, 1984
• Mr . Finch seconded the motion, and itpassed unanimously with
Mr . Fulton, Mr . Finch, Mr . Martindale, Mr . Wright, Mr . Eslick,
and Chairman Hutchins voting in favor .
DR 24-84/VAR 27-84/VAR 28-84 -- A request by Mr . and Mrs . Dale
Vandenburgh to locate a secondary dwelling unit in an it--7 .5
zone. The request also includes two variance, . The first is a
Class II variance to vary the required 2U foot front, yard to 18
feet . The second variance is a Class II variance to the Transit
standard, The property is ,located_ at 17379 Canal Circle (TM 2
IE .17BA, TL 6500 ) .
Mr , Tidman presented the staff report . Me said that tyre
secondary dwelling unit was a permitted use in any zone. It
must meet certain conditions In order to be approved. Staff
recommended approval of the secondary dwelling unit and both
variances with seven conditions . Mr . Tidman modified Condition
7 as follows:
7 . Half street improv,emtnts not exceeding a minimum of 10
feet wide pavement from the centerline and a 3 foot
gravelled shoulder along the property's Canal Circle
frontage are to be specified by the Department of Public
Works .
411
Catherine Gray, representing Mr . and Mrs . Vandenburgh and the
prospective buyers of the property, spoke in behalf of the
application. She said that purchase of the property was
contingent upon receiving approval for the secondary dwelling
unit. The buyers plan to use the unit as a living area for the
grandmother . There is no other suitable location on the
Property for a garage. She said the reason for a three-car
garage was so that there would be a space for the grandmother 's
car , and also to have enough living space in the secondary
dwelling Unit atop the garage, She said that because there was
no other location for a garage on the property, this was a
hardship.
Ms . Gray said that the setback variance was requested in order
to build the garage in front of the house (1o0ation was
discussed in the foregoing paragraph) She said that many other
residences on the street had smaller than required setbacks.
She said that street improvements to canal Circle had been
discussed with John Godsey, Public Works Director, and that he
had indicated no improvements which would expand the
right-of-way further into the property were planned in the
future.
Ask M.F. Munch, 17798 SW Canal circle, spoke in opposition to the
lip application. He said that his main concern was that varying the
0091z -2-
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES November 19 , 1984
lio front yard setback would place the garage to close to the
street . He said that although he was aware variances were
considered only for individual sites, his concern was that
approval of this variance would set a precedent for vacant
properties developed in the future.,
Jim Shannon, 17346 SW Canal Circle, spoke neither for nor
against the application . He objected to secondary dwellings
being a permitted use, and asked for clarification of Code
changes which changed secondary dwellings from a conditional use
to a permitted use .
Mr . Tidman responded to Mr . Shannon 's question regarding Code
changes permitting secondary dwellings in any residential zone.
Rebuttal
Catherine Gray said that the applicants were requesting this
action because they wanted a garage with the residence, and that
this space was the best available for a secondary dwelling
unit. She said the application met the criteria set forth for
secondary dwelling units. She said that every effort was being
made to make the garage have as low a profile as possible, and
that it would be the same style construction and colors as the
existing dwelling.
4 Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for Board
deliberation. The Board first considered VAR 28-84, variance to
the Transit Standard. Discussion centered on Whether a sidewalk
was desired or needed along Canal Circle, and what impact this
requirement would have on the applicant . Following discussion,
Mr . Eslick moved for approval of VAR 28-84 . Mr . Fulton seconded
the motion, and it passed unanimously.
The Board next considered, the secondary dwelling unit and the
front yard setback variance. Mr . Wright pointed out that
Exhibit E showed that out of 14 residences, 8 had setbacks which
exceeded the applicant 's requested setback variance. There was
discussion of a delineation of driveway and pedestrian areas
should be made by landscaping in some manner . Following further
discussion, Mr. Fulton moved for approval of DR 28-84 and VAR
27-84 with the following conditions:
1 . Deed restrictions be added to the title instrument Which
reference City of. Lake Oswego Planning File DR 24-84/VAR
27-84/VAR 28-84 and:
li
a. Limit the number of occupants of the secondary
dwelling unit to no more than two persons.
b. Require that one unit shall be occupied by the
IIIproperty owner.
0091z -3-
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES November 19 , 1984
411 c. Designate the open space as indicated on Exhibit L.
2 , Evidence of the City Planning department file reference
and deed restrictions on the title instrument must be
provided to the City Planning Department. No building
permits will be issued until this evidence is provided.
3 . The property's driveway be designed to conform with the
Site Circulation Driveway Standard.
4. A landscape plan be submitted for building plant review .
This plan shall specify street trees in accordance with
Section 9 .005 of the development code .
5 . A nonremonstrance agreement be signed for road
improvements along the property's Canal Circle frontage
6 . A 5 foot strip of land along the property's Canal, Circle
frontage be dedicated to the ,public for right-of-way
purposes .
7 . Half street improvements not exceeding a minimum of 10
feet wide pavement from the centerline and a 3 foot
gravelled shoulder along the property's Canal circle
41, frontage are to be specified by the Department of Public
Works .
8 . That landscaping to delineate and soften the change
between the driveway and pedestrian areas be designed to
the satisfaction of staff .
The motion Was seconded by Mr . Martindale and passed unanimously.
DR 23-84 - A request by Kinder Care Centers, Inc. for approval.
of a children resday care center , to be located in the R-7 .
residential zone on Red Cedar Way, about 100 feet east of Lower
Soones Ferry Road (TM 2 lE 8BD, TL 2/00 )
Mr. Galante presented the staff report. Staff' recommended
approval of the request with conditions.
Mel Stout, David Evans & Associates, 2626 SW Corbett, Portland,
:poke in behalf of the application. He described the plans for
the center . He Went through the conditions of approval
suggested by staff, objecting to changes requested for the bell
tower. He said that the bell tower was a trademark of Kinder
Care Inc, , and asked that the Development Review Hoard considor
this in their decision. Mr . Stout said that the condition
changing driveway circulation should be reconsidered in the
light that children must be brought into the day care center by
the con
parents, and that a drive-through would only cause further
ongestion. He said that Kinder care would' start construction '
0congestion.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES November 19, 1984
immediately upon receiving building permits, and that the
building should be completed within six months maximum after
• receipt of the building permits. Mr . Stout answered questions
for Board members.
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public I
hearing. Board deliberations centered on the driveway
circulation and design of the bell tower . Following ,discussion
and a consensus, Mr . Finch moved for approval of DR 23-84 with
the following conditions:
1 . That the conditions of the Planning commission's
conditional use approval be complied with.
2 . That the sign be reduced to a 2' vertical x 0 ' wide
dimension.
3 . That the bell-tower proportions and roofing material be
revised to comply with the Building Design Standard to
the satisfaction of staff.
4 . That an irrigation plan be provided prior to the
issuance of building permits .
5. That a wood or brick fence designed to be complimentary
to the character of a residential zone be provided along
the sides where a sight- obscuring fence is proposed .
411 6 . That drainage plans be modified to the satisfaction of
the Public Works Director.
7 That a specific development schedule be provided to the
satis- faction of the staff.,!
g . That lighting be provided which does not spill over onto
adjacent property to the satisfaction of staff .
Mr . Eslick seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. It
was emphasized by the Board that the findings should reflect the
I Board's concern that staff cars should be parked on the far side
of the parking area away from the building to minimize children
crossing the parking lot.
GENERAL PLANNING
It was decided to hold a workshop on December 3, 1984 as there
was only one public hearing on that agenda . Chairman Hutchins
asked for an update on the City Council's plans for a
parliamentary procedure Workshop. Staff indicated they had no
word as to what date the workshop would be held but that it was
planned for December .
III 0091z -.5-
1
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
BOARD MINUTES November 19, 1984
OTHER BUSINESS
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of October 15, 1984 were approved unanimously with
correction to condition #3 of DR 22-84 reflecting the fact that
the Board wished the roof to be shake .
Findings, Conclusions _& Order
DR 22-84 was approved for signature With the same correction as
made in the minutes of 10/15/84
DR 21-84 was approved as written .
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, Chairman !tUtchins
adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
7 )..t,,,c„,
Kristi Hitchcock
Secretary
III
0091z —6-
0
•
10
I
I
I
1
I
1
ii
' ' •
l , ' If
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES December 3, 1984,
The Development Review Boardlmewting of December 9, 1984 was
called to order by Chairman Richard Hutchins at 7 : 30 p.m. p.rn
Board members in attendance Were Chairman Hutchins, Richard
Eslick , Anthony Wright, John Fulton, Johr0 Glasgow, and Vern
Martindale. Curtis Finch Was excused. Staff preeent was
Development Review PlannerBob Galante,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr . Fulton ,moved for approvaA of the minutes of November 19,
1984 with a correction to condition number 2 on page 5 to read`
" . . .2 " vertical x 8 ' wide dimension" . The motion was seconded
by Mr . Finch and passed with Mr . Fulton, Mr, Finch, Mr, E,slick
Mr , Wright, Mr . Martindale, and Chairman Hutchins voting in
favor . Mr .. Glasgow abstained.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr . Galante Said that he had received a letter from OTAK, Inc, j
regarding minor changes to their Development Permit. Its
content would be discussed later in the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SV 6-84 - A request by Nawzad Othman acting, as agent for First
S
a City Investments, or approval ' of an entry sign and structure
for the Westlake development. The sign is located on the
Northwest corner of the intersection of Kt4se Way and Weslak
Drive (Tax Map 28 1E 6 , Tax Lot 105) .
Mr . Galante presented. the staff reports Staff recommended
approval of the sign request as it met all current standards .
Linda potter, OTAK, ,Inc. 15110 SW f3oones Ferry Road, spoke In
behalf of the sign request. She described the sign and said it
will be painted a huff color to ;, lend in with the surrounding
oak trees. She answered' questions for Board members.
No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public
heating. Following discussion Mr. Glasgow moved for appr0val of
SV 6-84 . Mr . Wright seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously
OTHER BUSINESS
Findings, Conclusions and Order
DR 24-84/VAR 27-84/VAR 2O-84-224 (Vandenburgh ) -approved As
Written
DR 23-84-225 (Kindercare) approved the same Correction as''
411 made in the minutes of November 19, 1984
w
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES December 3, 1984 Alk i
VAR 26-84-223 (Sewright) Approved as amended
Staff's Request for Administrative Approval of minor;
Modification to Centerpointe
Mr . Galante gave the Board copies of a letter from UTAKr
Inc. regarding trees which had been cut or damaged due to
cuts deeper than planned being required on the site. Some
trees had to be cut and same trees were left With exposed
and cut roots. He asked the Board to allow Staff to
approved requested modifications to the plans in order to
quickly remedy the situation. Following discussion in which
Board members indicated concern with replacing large (24"
diameter ) trees with small ,r,(8" ' diameter ) trees, the Board
agreed that it was more expedient to have staff reViel..42 and
approve the applicants modifications provided that the
criteria required to administratively process minor changes
(49 .125) could be met ,
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, Chairman Hutchins
adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully Submitted
go
5?1'4. 27 . r ...•6 . ,Id.0...-if Uffs..,.__,..0
)V
Kristi Hitchcock
secretary
0098z
III
II
-2
,.:vrw?. ... ara L".'•i -...LLF'liS4Sa ",y-.e x
gill
ill
•
0 ,
'.:11'i' �R O mot= 1•Mill. ., k,,c. '�' —�=ar4 n4::�c—ik4c __ 1, ;ate'.'
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES December 17 , 1984
The Development Review Board meeting of December l7 , 1984 was
called to order by Chairman Richard Hutchins at 7 : 30 p.m. Board
members present were Chairman Hutchins, Curtis Finch, Anthony
Wright, and John Fulton. Vern Martindale and John Glasgow were
excused, and Richard Eslick was absent . ' Staff present were city
planner Stan Tidman, Deputy. City AttorneyMark Pilli4�d and
r
Secretary Kristi Hitchcock. 1\
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of December 3 , 1984 were considered for approval .
(Approval of minutes took glade after the public hearings . ) Mr .
Fulton Moved for approval of the minutes as written/amended.
The motion was seconded by Richard Hutchins and passed
unanimously with Mr . Fulton, Mr . Wright, and Chairman Hutchins
votingin favor . Mr . Finch abstained as he was not
present at
the December 3 meeting.
PETITIONS AN!) COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SD 30-84/VAR 25-84 - An appeal by Mr . and Mrs. Edward A. Quick
of a staff approval of a Minor Partition and Class I Variance.
The location of the property for the requested actions is 5237
Washington Court.
Mr . Tidman presented the staff report . He said staff had
administratively approved ,the partition and variance on November
G , 1584, Subsequently Mr, and Mrs . Quick had written a letter
requesting appeal of staff 's decision because of increased
traffic potentially caused by the partition, increased traffic
hazards at the intersection of Washington Court and Boones Ferry
Road, and potential increases in noise caused by increased
traffic and density. Mr . Tidman requested the Board to uphold
staff 's approval of the partition and variance as all applicable
zoning, code, and Comprehensive Plan criteria were met. Mr .
Tidman answered questions for Board members. He said that the
owner had been requested to move the driveway for the three new
parcels to the west in order to not treat traffic hazards with
the intersection of Boones Ferry and Washington Court .
Mrs. E.A. Quick , spoke in behalf of the appeal request . She
said that traffic on Washington Court is heavy, and there have
already been numerous accidents at the corner of Boones Ferry
and Washington Court Increase in traffic caused by allowing
additional density by partitioning this parcel coul4!; cause
further traffic hazards. She was concerned that there would be
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES December 17 , 1984 Page 2
i
increased noise levels. Mrs. Quick said that the area is
semi-rural in nature, and that this partition would increase the
density, changing the nature of the neighborhood. 1
David Metzger , said he agreed with City staffs deci ion
approving the partitioning and Variance, and that he would meet
conditions required by that approval . He said the driveway that
is close to Roones Ferry would be moved to the west, and that
westerly access would reduce the possibility of traffic hazards
at the Boones Ferry Road/Washington Court intersection .
No one else spoke and Chairman Hutchins closed the public
hearing for Board deliberation. Following discussion, Mr.
Wright moved to uphold staff's approval of SO 30--84/VAR 25-84 .
Mr,. Fulton seconded the motion, and, it passed unanimously.
Pb 9-84/VAR 29-84/VAR 30-84/VAR 31-84/VAR 32-84/VAR 33-84 - a
request by }3righam & Farr for approval ofra 27-lot residential
planned development in an R-15 zone. The request also involves
five variances . The first is a request to vary the Transit
standard. The second is a request to vary the Landscaping,
street Trees, Screening and Buffering Standard. The third is a
request to vary the Access, Standard. The fourth is a request to
ilo vary the required cul-de-sac radius. The fifth is a request to
vary the subdivision code sidewalk requirement.
Mr. Tidman presented the staff report . He said that staff
recommended denial of the application based on the following
conclusions:
1. The applicant has not, prepared a planned development
proposal (in accordance With LOC 48 . 470) which conserves
natural land features, facilitates desireable aesthetic
and efficient use of open space or creates public and
private common open spaces.
2. The proposal does not comply with the Residential
Density Standard in that the applicant has not clearly
demonstrated density transfer for slopes greater than
25% on several proposed lots .
3. The proposal does not clearly demonstrate compliance
With the Hillside Protection/Erosion Control Standard
(LOC 16 .020)
4 The proposal does not comply with the purpose of the
Park and Open Space Standard ( LOC 8 .015 (1) and LOC
8.035(4 )) .
41, 5 . The applicant has not clearly justified the variance
request to the Street Tree portion of ( LOc 9.020(4 ) ) of
the Landscaping, Street Trees, Screening and Buffering
Standard.
i
DEVELOPMENT RSV/EW BOARD MINUTES December 17 , 1984 Page 3
411
6 . The applicant has adequately justified the Variance
request to the Access Standard [LOC 18 .020 (1 ) 1 ; however,
vision clearance hazards on Terrace Drive have not been
addressed.
7 . The applicant has not clearly justified the variance
request to the required cul-de-sac radius requirement
according to LOC 44. 387(c) ,
8 . The applicant has not justified the variance request to
the Residential Streets - General Standard [LOG
44 .381(e ) a
9 . ?The applicant has clearly justified the variance request
to the Transit Standard ( LOC 6 ,020 )
10 . 'The proposal does not demonstrate compliance with
Drainage for Major Development ( LOC 11 .020 (2 ) and ( 3) ] ,
Mr . TidMan said that a meeting of the applicant, the City
Manager, Assistant City Manager , Planning Director, Deputy City
Attorney and other staff was held Friday, December 14. As a
411 result of this meeting the applicant had submitted new
information which staff had not yet had time to review as it was
received the afternoon of the hearing, He recommended that the
Board either deny the applicant' s planned development request
based on the initial submissions or continue the public hearing
to a date certain so that staff, the Board, and the public could
become familiar with the new submittals.
Following discussion of the Board, and agreement by the
applicant 's representative, Marlin DeHaas, Mr . Finch moved to
continue PD 9-84/VAR 29-84/VAR 30-84/VAR 31-84/VAR 32-84/VAR
3.3-84 to the next Development Review Board meeting, January 7 ,
1985. Mr . Fulton seconded the motion, and it passed with Mr.
Finch, Mr . Fulton, and Chairman Hutchins voting in favor . Mr .
Wright voted against continuance.
GENERAL PLANNING - None
OTHER BUSINESS
The Board approved the minutes of December 3 , 1984 . A second
vote will be necessary at the January 7 , 1985 meeting to verify
this vote as only three Board members present were eligible to
vote.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD) MINUTES December 17 , 1984 Page 4
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, Chairman Hutchins
adjourned the meeting at 13' "40 p.m.
Respectfully Submittedtvfie
Kristi Hitchcock
Secretary
0105z