Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Approved Minutes - 1986-06-24
1.A"PMTIVR . Cl'i'X OP LAKL OSWEGO Urt1.1 J ../ L , I7NVELGPMLNm I.SVI1:W; 13UA1te MINUTSS duns 24, 1986 The special meeting of the Development Review 11Qard was called to order at 8:00 a0m, Members preoent were Curtis Finch, Kenneth zinali, Robert 131aokmore, Vern Martindale and Anthony Wright was } eXcused, Staff present Were Lori Maatrantonio, Development BeView Planner and Marian Stulken, secretary, The purpose of the special meeting was to take a second Vote on PD 03-86-01 (Shelter Dovoloptnent) since Mt. Martindale and Mr. Wright abstained froM voting on the request. PD 03-86-01 - A continuation of a request by Consulting Engineering; Services and Shelter Development company for approval of a 33-lot planned development located south oix South Shore uoulevard, west oi, Greentree Road, north of Greentree Circle, and east of Wall Street (Tax Coot 101 of TAX Map 2 14 90C, and Tax Lots 2000, 2890, 2900 and 2990 of TAX Map 2 lS 9DD}r Mr 2insii made a motion that the motion, with the conditions stated at the last regular meeting (June 16, 1986) stand. The motion was seconded by Hobert hlaokmore and carried unanimously. Since there was no further busineas, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 a.m. konpectfully submitted, Marian $tulken 1ZeCording Secretary 4 03P/mays 1 M f DEVELOPMENT RI3VTf.W BOARD MINUTES .TUNE 16, 1986 PAGE 1 The Dovolopment Reviow Board meeting of Juno 16, 1986 was called to order by Vico-Chairman Vern Martindalo at 7:00 p.m. Members present wore Vorn Martindale, Kenneth 2tnsli► Robert Blackmoro, Curtis Pinch and Anthony Wright. Richard Eslick► chairman and aohn Glasgow wore excused. Staff present were Topaz Faulkner, Planning Director; Sandra Duffy, Deputy city Attorney; Lori Mastrantonio, Development Review Planners Renee Dowlin, Assistant Planner; Kris Hitchcock, Secretary;; and, ,Jerry Baker, Ongineoring Traffic Coordinator. H The Board' convened at 7:00 in order to consider Findings, Conclusions and Order and Minutes. The following findings wore considered and approved for signature: DR 03-06-02/VAR 03-06-01, Spoor Development DR 04-86-01, Marylhurst DR 03-86-03/VAR 03-86-03, Ward Architocts APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Board considered the minutes of April 21, 1906 for approval. Following consideration, Mr. Blackmoro moved for approval of the minutes of April 21, 1986 as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. 2ine1i and passed unanimously, Mr. Pinch moved for approval of the minutes of May 5, 1906 as amended. Mr. Zinsli seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The Board then rocessod the meeting until the normal starting hour of 7:30. Vice-Chairman Martindale reconvened the mooting at 7:30 p.m. E � PUnLIC HEARINGS Vice-Chairmen Martindale announced that the hearing on PD 02-06-03, a request by Raymond J. Bartel wan postponed. PD 03-86-01 - A continuation of a ;re uost b Consultinra Eno near no servicescos an: Ste ter Development Company for approval of a 33-lot planned development locardd south of South Shore Boulevard, west of Groentreo Road, north of Greontrdc Circle, and nest of Wall Street (Tax Lot 101 of Tax Map 21t9DC) and Tax Lots 20 y',2990►2900, ,and 2990 of 'lax Map 21e9DD). TKI, Board discussed whether the public hearing should be reopened for testimony on the now oviddnce submitted. It was A consensus of the Board and the Deputy City Attorney, that testimony should bo allowed on only that portion of the proposal which was newly submitted. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES- JUNK 16, i98G PAGE 2 Ms. Mastrantonio presented the staff report. She said that the location of the pathway on Greontree has not yet boon located. Because of the location of the stream corridor, the pathway will likely be on the east side of greentree. The main consideration for this portion of tho hearing are the four points listed in the staff report. Ms. Mastrantonio gave out copies of letters received (exhibit-. 23, a letter from James & Genevieve Robi> received Juno 16, 1986 and exhibit 24, a letter from Kirby VanderHouven received Jena 16, 1936) proponents John Godsoy, Consulting Engineering Services, spoke in behalf of the application. Ho said that they have submitted the additional information requested et the last uoaringr 1. Flans for street lighting fixtures 2. Sidewalks - they have highlighted them on the cross section in which they wore originally included. Ho said the only other sidewalks in the area run from Sunnyhill hrive down to the westerly boundary of their project. They contend that sidewalk should be continued on that side of the street down to Greentroo. He said that the property on their side of the street drops steeply into the stream corridor and half street improvements would require a retaining wall. They agree to come up with a section that will split this difference of the impact of st>;eot improvements with the other side of the street, with a retaining wall now -half of the improvements to 4 be completed now, and the remainder in the future, 3. Cul-de-sacs - Ho said in discussions with the Snginooring staff, a compromise has boon reached, modifying turn grounds allowing vehicle turn around, mail service, street cleaning, etc. , although emergency vehicles will have to back up. 4. Access - Adjacent property to the west will have two potential access points from either South Shore Boulevard or Woodland Terrace. Mr. Codsay answered questions for heard members about types of fill and the portent of cross slope needed for the turn around area. Ho said the design of the modified cul de sac would impact the stream corridor less. No one else spoke and Vice-Chairman Martindale closed the public hearing. Following discussion of the conditions required for approval, Mr. ., Finch moved for approval of till 03.86-01 with the following conditions: 1 OEVEtOPt1ENT REVIEW BOARD RINUTES aUN8 16, 1986 PAGE 3 1, A ropreducible of the final plat shall be submitted to the City which clearly depicts, a) sidewalks; b) utility oasomontst and, c) setbacks. 2. The final CC & R's shall be submitted to the City and approved before final plat approval, 3, The applicant shall pay the appropriate park and aeon space fees or submit a shcodulo outlining the assessment and method of payment of the appropriate fees prior to approval, of the final, plat. 4, The applicant shall submit a Street Tree Plan illustrating the size, typo and location of existing trees to remain, and the size, tope and location of new trace for staff review and approval prior to approval of the final plat. 5. That the final construction plans be reviewed and approved by to geotechnical engineer for compliance with their recommendations in the report dated April, 1986. 6. That positive proof and foundation drains be provided to all lots and shown on the construction plane prior to approval. 7. That the erosion control measures listod in the applicant's narrative be incorporated in the final construction plan notes along with the gootochnicat report's recommendations for wet and dry weather construction roqure►nenta and a landscaping and restoration plan for the detention basin facility. 6. That Wall Street be a 32 foot street with vertical curb and gutter and that all other stroota be 24 foot streets with curb and gutter. h. That modified cul-de-sacs be provided in all streets in accordance with Exhibit 17, and that the cul-de-sac on Arbor Court be modified to occur at the end of the street either by shortening the street or moving the cul-de-sac allt, approved by staff. 10, That Greentroe Road be built with half street improvements for a 36 foot street including street lighto, vertical curb and guotter and, ntornM drainage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, but that the final width may vary at the discretion of the City Engineer, 11. That a nonremonstrance for future improvements on South Shore Boulevard and Greentroe 'toad be required along with e petition for a future LID prior to approval of the final plat. ) DRVNLOPMRNT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JUNU 16, 198E PAGR 4 12. That a left turn lane with appropriate tapering shall be constructed on South Shore Boulevard at Croontree Road as per specifications of the City Engineer. 13. That the applicant provide a utilities plan with final construction plans for sidewalks and their location in relation to mailboxes, street lights, hydrants, etc. and that the section of pathway between Lot 19 and the open space be built along with the development. The sower lino shall be extended from Tyndall to Nelson Court. 14. That a final street lighting plan and nhotometrics bo submitted to to City Engineer prior to final approval. of the construction plans. 15. That the final construction plans for water, sanitary sewers and storm drainage and streets moot the City's code, standards and specifications prior to approval. 16. That prior to all building permits, individual soils and foundation reports be provided to the satisfaction of then Building Department and approved ad by the developers gectechniaalo engineer. 17. That the proposed borm along the north side of the site and adjacent to South Shore boulevard be reviewed and approved by the gdotechnical engineer and staff, ensuring appropriate slopes duo to the potential hazardous features of the site in thin area. The motion was seconded by Mr. Zinali and panned with M . Ulackmoro, Mr. Finch, and Mr. 2innli voting in favor. Mr. Martindale and Mr. Wright abstained. Mo. Duffy said that because two of the board members abstained from voting, it would be necessary to hold another vote. Mr. pinch moved to table the action on Pp 03-06-01 to the next meeting (July 7, 1906) for anothor vote to verify thin 3-0-2 vote. Tho motion was seconded and panned unanimously. VAR 05-86-03 - a request by 'ynda & William O'Neill for approval of a variance of t'G" to the recuirad 2a' rear and setback to construct en addition. A variance to the cote restr ct ons placed on oncontorm ni suunnn was also requested. Thu lot is located at 961 Lake Front Road (Tax Lot 150U o Tax Map 2 1. G' 10Dt3 Ms. Dowlin presented the staff report. The existing residenco is a nonconforming structure, with of 20'6". She recommended :` approval of the variance requests. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00ARD MINUTES JUND 16, ,1986 PAGE 5 No ono spoke for or against the variance requests and Vice- Chairman Martindale closed the public hearing for Board deliberations. Mr. I3lackmoro moved for approval of VAR 0$-06-03. Tho motion was seconded by Mr. Finch and passed unanimously with Mr. I3lackmoro, Mr. Finch, M . Martindale, Mr. zinsli and Mr. Wright voting in ,favor. SD 03-86-02 - a request b/ Ron and Linda Olson for approval to partition their parcel into two lots. A future Street plan for thin lot and surrounding lots wl1l also bo c'nsidorod. The lot is located at 3275 Lako Orovo Street (Tax Lot 9130 ok Tax Map 2 lF, ODU). Ms. t>owlin presented the staff report. in rosponso to Mr. Martindalo questioning the origin of the variance request► Ms. Dowtin said that the variance was staff initiated. The City ie planning for future streets and is requiring that when lots partition in areas whore a futuro street will. ho needed, that the rtroot be designated and dodicationn bo made. pocauso the applicant was not yet present to testify► the Board asked for those wishing to speak in opposition to come forward. Opponents Kon Wilkerson, said that ho was opposed to the partitioning of this lot because it would change the zone and open the way for further partitioning in the area. Mn. Dowlin put a map showing the partitioning, future street plan and neighborhood on the ovorhoad projoctor. She showed how the parcel was planned to bo divided and said that the partitioning met City criteria and zoning. Cr' Lutherlund, Twin Fir Road, said he was opposed to this pa, sttion and future street bocauso when it goon on record with the County it will encourage development in the area. Ho was conoornod about traffic impacts. Re said that although the current zoning in R-10, lie would prefer that Zoning wore R-1$ because thin would lesson traffic and population incroaso Richard Vanioaminon, Southwest tipper Drive, said that ho is against the future streets proposal. uo does not oppose the partitioning. Rip reasons for opposing the future street requirement wore the amount of land being required for dedication to the City and the requirement of street widening on Lake orovo Street. 'rho applicants arrived of the meeting and testified. PI DRVCr.,GPMF;NT hRVzEW BOARD) MINu'CC;3 dome 16, 1906 PAG8 6 Proponents non olnon, sold ho opposed the future streets plan, He said he has no intention of further dividing tho site other than the two lots requested in the Application. Ho said that the proposed location of the street was in the wrong placo. He sold he is willing to locate the now structure so that it does not conflict with the future nocossity for a street, but does not wont to foot the bill for improvements to [,eke Grove, He agreod with the others in opposition. Vice-Chairman Martindale closed the public hoaxing for Hoard deliberations. Mr. Cinch said he a;1rood with testimony that the 1 City should not be allowed to take property for future stroots. Ho disagrood with the location of the street. He said a flag lot would ho a muoh better solution. Ms. Faulkner said that the City Traffic Coordinator, Oorry Baker, was present to speak about traffic concerns. He had the following concerns: 1. 'Coo many access points close to the intorsootion of Lake Grove Street and Upper privo. 1 2. Land owners of sovoral other parcels could not dovolop their land atoll hooauaa of the short sight distance to that lntorsection, 3. Thero would be a sowor system with manholes constructed which would help the drainage problems in the area. 4. Safety - +f there woo a driveway too oloso to the intersection of Lake Grove and Upper Drive it would be dangerous for someone backing out of that driveway, 5. If thin site wan to he dovelopod inthe manner requested by the applicant. (a flag lot) , ho would ask that the application be denied bucauso of the sight dintance, Mr. Baker said that the Piro Marshal requires 25' so that a car could ho parked another car can use the road. Ho asked that if the future street plan woo not approved on planned, that a nonremonstranco agreement bo raquirod for future floods. Ho answered questions about rquieomonts for siring of streets and said that Lake Grove Strut, is currently 19' wide, and that staff sokod that it be improved n.F) 20' . He said that if the dedication required by the Olson's was never used, it could be vacated. 'rho Hoard discussed the need for the future street, the location of the street and concerns oxprosned by thoso testifying, alternate locations for a future street and the width DEVGLoPMEN'r REVIEW BoARI MINUTES JUNE 16, 1086 PAGE 7 requirements for both a future street and Lake Grove Street. Mr. Finch and Mr. Blackmer° felt that Mr. Olson should not be required o r.datiald inteuttfelt. artyi Ml and Mr. for el 'Ala City a street in this ',location in the future, and that it would be easier to locate the street now. The Hoard discussed conditions recommended by staff for approval of theproposal. They agreed with conditiona 1-3. Condition 4 should be deleted (it required Lake Grove Avenue to be improved), They agreed with Conditions G and 9. The Hoard discussed the possibility of the access being on Douglas Circle rather than Lake Grove Street. Mr. Pinch moved for denial of Sp 03-06-02 an presented on the grounds that the owner doesn't want the future streets plan. The motion failed for lack of a; second. The Board asked Mr. Olson to comment after hearing the City's Traffic Coordinator's reasoning for need of a future street. Mr. Olson said the City is asking for too much of his property to be dedicated at his expense, Ha said that the street width should be shared bythe adjacent rod be able to access to it. � properties that will within 811ors9ifootaofithe eexistingehouseeonuLet it would he would not be opposed to sharing a driveway with the existing - house. The Board reached a consensus that a future street plan was necessary, but that it ahould accona Douglas Circle and not Lake Greve Street. Until such time an a future street is developed,, the access to the back lot would be with a flag lot with both sharing the same accoan. Mr. flackmorr moved for approval of SO 03-06-02 as presented by the applicant with the following conditions that: 1. The following land be dedicated to the public for right- of-way purposes: o A 15' strip of land along the southern boundary of Tax t 900 0 A 20' strip of land along the northern boundary of Tax Lot 900 2. A minor partition purvey, showing the two parcels and the right-of-way dedication be registered with the Clackamas County'm Surveyor's Office. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW HOARD MINUTER JUNE t6, 100G PAGE 0 3. Legal descriptions (motor+ and hounds) bo apocified on legal inatrumonta for title -transfer and bo recorded with the Clackamas County Clerk's Office. Tho legal doacriptions for the parcel shall; a Reference thin land uno applciation City of Lake Onwugo Planning Department Pilo No. SD 03-06-02. 4. Tho applicant nign a nonromonatranco agreement for future street improvomonte for both Lako Grove Avenue and the future street. 5. The applicant work with the City'a Traffic Coordinator to eliminate any vision Clearance caUood by the existing St hedge. 6. All roof and foundation draina be connected to an ongineorod drywoll. 7. Street addronning for the roar log parcel be visible from Lako Grove Street to maximize response of emergency aervicee 0. A driveway design to aorvo the roar parcel bo coordinated with the Inginooring Department. 9. Evidence of the above condltionn be provided to the City Planning Department. 10. The 'V'uturo Street Plan (boundary map and narrative ) be rocordod by the City at the Clackamas County Rocordor,o Office. 11 Accoaa to the roar lot be through the future street at ouch time an that in dovtalopod with an oceans. 12. That both of the iota on Tax Lot 900 will oharo the name. accono point to Lake Grove Strout, and that an eaoomont for the front lot be granted by the roar lot. Also, that a finding included that accoan to Douglan Circle is proforrod to Lako Grove Street for the future street. Mr. Pinch ankod that condition 11 be amended to nay that the back lot nhould accona the future otroot if roguootod by the City. The Condition will now reads 11. Xf rogues-tad by the City, accoan to the back lot will be through the future etroot at ouch time au that otroot in developed. Dt VI Le PMI:NP MINVU W I30ARI) MTNUTI;S auN1, 16, 1986 PAGN 9 fl-Asi Mr. M3lackmpro agrood to the amondod condition and Mr. Pinch 0ocondad tho motion. Tho motion pnsnod unanimously with Mr. [3lackmor0► Hr. Finch, Mr. Martindale► Mr. Zinsli and Mr. Wright All voting in favor. OR 05-86.-01 . a reguost by fisher, Wallin a Long, Architects/7lannor:3, and the Lako Oswor�o United~ Mothcdiat Church for a proval to ronovato CFO oxistfng church building. ' Also.additional parking, landscaping and signage ,are proposed. The { site is locatod north of South Shore louolvard► east of the National Guard Armony and west of eani1or Drive (Tax Lot 3400 of 'i'a* Map 2 lE 100d). Ms. Mastrantonio prosontod the staff report. She reviewed the conditions of approval and clarified sipnnge. There are two signs proposed, one 2'x3' and one 10" x 1.5' high (Exhibit 6). She said that the 30" sign is not considered to bo an incidental sign unless it servos as a dirootional guide i.e. entrance, exit, etc. She said that If the Board had no problems with the 30" sign, staff would support that. Proponents Harold Long, Eishbr, Long a Long, 5331 SW Macadam, Portland,, spoke in behalf o. the application.' Ho said they ore proposing tp renovate the church within its existing framowork. There is currently a vary large parking lot with very little landscaping. The addition will use some of thin parking area and landscaping will bo added to soften the parking area and the front of the buiding. He described the renovation design planned. Mr. Long discussed the parking situation, saying that they could remove four spaces at the back to meet staff's concerns for maneuvering of vehicles and Save the large tree north of the proposed lot. (Exhibit 4) but that they fool they can nave the tree while leaving those spaces. Ho said that the spaces will bo marked for compact cars, and that maneuvering would not he difficult. Mr. Long said that the second small sign was necessary to identify the entrance to the church lot. The access is .crooned and difficult to see. lie asked that they be allowed to put the large sign in the right-of-way because if it is back further it will be very difficult to deo from the street. fie said they would agree to move the Sign if the street is improved. Mr. Long said they agree with staff's proposed change in the location of the catch basin front the northeast portion of the lot to the northwest corner. They will change their drainage plan to reflect that ' movement. Nc one also spoke and Vice-Chairman Martindale closed the public hearing for Board deliberation. Board consensus was that the 30" ' sign met criteria are an incidental sign as it directed traffic to DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES 3UNE: 16, 1986 PAGE 10 the church entry, that the tree should be saved if possible, but that its removal would not significantly affect the area as there are many tregn► and that the sign may be placed in the right-of- way as long as it is moved when the City improves the street. Mr. Finch moved for approval of DE 05-06-01 with the following conditions recommended by staff: 1. That every effort be made to nave tho large tree Just north of the proposed lot (Exhibit 4). The final parking lot plan shall indicate the type and intensity of lighting to the satisfaction of staff. Native vegetation disturbed an a result of constructing the parking lot shall be replaced with like material. 2. That the applicant sign a nonremonstrhnce agreement for future street and bikopath improvements along South Shore Boulevard, along with a petition for a future prior to the issuance of any building ,permits. In addition, the applicant shall dedicate 10' of right-of- way along South Sher° Boulevard. 3. A Drainage plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. In addition, a soils reporot shall be provided to ensure that the proposed drainage system will; function properly. ' ho motion was seconded by Mr. tslackmore and peened unanimously with Mr. Blackm°re► Mr. Finch, Mr. Martindale, Mr. Zintali and Mr. Wright voting in favor. aENERAr, PI;ANNTNa; Ms. Faulkner said that the applicant for Lindssy Park planned Development requested that there be a reconsideration of the application because he wan unable to hear porttonn of Board discussion and was unable to respond to what was said. Ma. Faulkner said she had been sitting in the audience also and wan unable to hoar what was being said. The applicant's representative has asked that the Board reconsider prio to adoption of the final order. Ms. Faulkner said she wan supporting this request because of the inability to respond to items brought up in the discussion. She had a partial transcript, made which verified the discussion held by the hoard. Mr. Blackmer° said that as he had made the motions the applicant was allowed to resubmit at any time without prejudice. Ms. Mastrantonie said that the application asked for a 4 clarification of the definition of a flag lot. Ms. Faulkner said ! L DDD :1 CITY LAKE a Nt.Gu C AoN UEVt:LoPMENT REVIEW BUARU MINUTES June 2, 1986 The Dovelopmont Review Board meeting of dune 2► 1906 wee called to order by chairman Richard Eslick at 7:32 p.m. Board members in attendance were Chairman Eelick, Curtiss Pinch, Kenneth 2insli and Robert Blackmero, Vern Martindale, Anthony Wright and John Glasgow wore excused. Staff present were Planning Director Topaz Gauiknert Development Review Planners Lori Maetrentonio and Robert Galante: Deputy City Attorney Sandra Duffy: City Traffic Coordinator Jerry Baker; and, secretary Marian Stulken. APPROVAL oP MINUTES The minutes of April 21, 1900 and May 5, 1900 Were presented for approval. Duo to the length of the minutes, Mr. Vinoh made a motion to Vote on the ,minutes at the end of the meeting. The motion was eacondod by Mr 2inoli and carried. PETITIONS_AND COMMUNICA'1't0Ns - None PUI31,It: HEARINGS Chairman Bolick stated .for the record that the first item on the agenda (DR 04-06-02/VAR 05-06-04) had been withdrawn and that there would be a change in the order of the agenda. :tom 'C' (PD 03-86-01) would be heard after item 'Ue (PD 04-80.01/VAR 04-86-04/VAR 05-86-06) DR 03-06-02. A requent by John Codney, acting an agent for Spurr Develment. co.! for npprovai .at an Uz "unit multifamily apartment prolootloanted weut of N©0neu Ferry Road and leant o Davin Dane (Tax t,otn 4300 and 4400 of Tax Map 2 iE 5CD ttind max Lot 2UU of �i'ax M�a 1k 813A). Mr. Galante gave a history of the Site and briefly summarized the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the project with a number of conditions. Ito read and commented on the condit ones for the benefit of the board. Mr, Galante distributed and explained the revised site plan showing the dimonsiona and Setbacks proVioucly not in plan, PUBLIC HEARING Proponent John Godney, Consulting Engineering Services, 12699 S. W. Center, Beaverton, OR, Mr, Godsey introduced ferry CreVon, Salle Engineer who prepared the soils report. Re briefly described the mitt explained the project; and r ..1. g1 DEVEt1OPMr1UT 1U VTUW BOARD MINU�.�r�,:3. Juno 2k .1086 1 4100, explalne the re agene for the reViesed utte pan. Mr. Goddoy reaid he supported the etaffte recommendations for approval but Pointed out that Condition NO, 1 had been met and referenced ! Gxhibit '6, a ntampoc1 6urvuy. He ecele that Condition No. 10 l regarding the vacation of Davie mane^ would not be to the benefit of his client, aina regarding Condition No. 16 requiring a turnaround at the end of Davie t.aner they have talked to the City Bngineer and will continue to work with him to provide name cart of turnaround Capability, Mr, eiodeeey answered quenttono from the Board. Mike Schwartz 31tr S, W. ,4th, 01013, ,Portlandt oh, Landscape .ire: r tectT working with thin preJeot came forward and Pointed Put aom+e o>< the landaeoping details and annwered queetionn from the Board an to what types of Street treee will be used. oPPolNi N'L. Clark B. bchrenkenberger 29 !reucl►atonn, t1aka t)nwa , Mr. 8uhron�sanbeeger li eeidont "TTe omoewnur.a Aaeociation Be expronaod his concorne, no a resident and alno an a repreeentativo of the homoownero aanocietion, regarding the use of Davis Lane ea the only accone to thin property. The residents feel that thin propcaal will generate more traffic on Davin Lane and TTouchntone and they strongly protent donignation of Davie t,ano an the accent to thin property. They feel that hccans should be from Boone° marry load bbeoauao it le a attest that in already developed an a commercial street and in built to handle thane volumes of traffic Mike Tavlor, 10,llotapur, Lake veiwego, tilt. Mr. Taylor expressed bin concern regarding the accene and the incroane in traffic on Davin Lane and rCouchntone. Be feels that thin parcel could acceon onto Itrvuo Way place and referenced the emergency access and the time etudiore that were done iin approximately 1981) designating .4000 Kruse Way to be the quicker emergency eccese* Mr. Taylor feelo that Condition 10 will eliminate that ocean end in oppened to that, Ho exprenned concern regarding density and olopen of the pro3octt and (inked whether square- footage had been reduced for the elopes an per the Development Ordinance, Chairman Bolick gueationed staff regarding the density And sloes iif the preloct with regard to the design and whether the police and Piro Department had reviawud thin projects and, whether they had arp+rev#gel it as proposed. Mr. Calanto said that Piro Marshall .John McCauley had reviewed it and had noted certain conditions that allowed him s°o nay that the, aaceca Onto Kr+uno was► Place wan ne longer n+ecennary under present day circumetancen. M,r. McCauley alao indicated in hin review that the circumstances would improve greatly with the building of the new :biro- atatian at ?ouberg and Melrose Bond. .22., DEVt;1OPMIsN'P REVIEW tBOAf S MINUTES Juno 2 1986 REHUTt'nL John Oodno Connultint On inoortn% Services , Mr, Cesdooy came orwar an ad rvauo t o concerns of thonu who opQku in opporitton. He paid that one of thu ancuno moues wan .ronolVod by the City Council and rho Planning Conmiaaion during a zone change of the property in the late 1170'n/early 1980'n in which the property wan rezoned, and, due to concerns raised by the Mt, Park Homoownorn Annociatiran, navia Lane wan terminated no that traffic would not go through that area, He Further otated that the commercial property wan noparated from thu residential by thin zone change and that the acoana in entablinhod by concitionn of the zone change that took • Piece at that t.imo, Mr, Qodney addrunnud the density and elope conuerne and said that 82 units are allowed by Code, He explained' that the large alopeo that may appear an part of the development aro actually in right-of-way and pointed them out on the map, The atoeply alopod areas are outside the project area and down not affect the number of units allowed, There being no further teAtimeny, Chairman Bolick cloned the public hearing portion of the meeting for hoard deliberation, ►1r. Pinch naid thin in a good plan and fualn that it in the► only way to. develop the site. ' Mr. 2innli ankod ,ntaff what in appropriate, ainca the applicant doer not feel it in to their benefit to vacate tiavia Lano. tor, Galante said that it in not noconnary to vacate that .trout in order to develop that property and the last line Of Condition 13 can be eliminated, A brief dinounnion followed between staff and the Board regarding vacation of navin :Jane; whe would be roaponoiblo for maintaining itr and, landscaping for the project, Mr. 4innli asked for clarification of Condition No, 4 regarding the trash unelonuren coinciding with the materials of the buildings, Mr, Calantt± explained that it in illustrated in their narrative that the applicant will uno aiding to match the buildings. Mr. Blackmero anked Mr, dalante why cocoon in not being considered on Lowor floonen Perry at thin time, He explained.. that boonen Perry in 40 arterial street and the City Code requires that where there in alternate accent) available, that, alternate acoean be taken, The Code and the comprohenaive Plan directs clearly that access nho►►ld not occur from hoonon Perry Road, nincuanton followed between the hoard and start. chairman nulick moele that the building elevations fit well with the eloping ground and works well with the exintin; gradon. fie then asked the architect what kind of colare are proponud for the unite f a� ` ,�,,�lrrt .a . une 2 1986 y ff ) r , ; drank 1300t0 f .,'.:. i s o the eteff. h U 3nd the architect ti.4 i74, � we�ro regarding' A" , 'l v -aT tyt, 4 istalln raid that he r,pia gg e, �' r dead Ml� lC O. asL.Trie was not 0,",7 �0n at that P; ii1P0 with the City r; ,�,0� F a tr^oott would leave }: a ,' , Or tn.() hoard has to �,, ,1. + : t° arcvements tO e.. t s� Ii .).r-( tI options in �'' . E ig, ,3 the hoard and at Sao already boon W4r Lane; the tv, r Davis Lane Iw ;YK' a,�rr ' v 0 �v to 4*,<, f !.e t1141 turnaround. y W r � .. _ sold tar needed and * ., a rcco:/mending coming ''i '. en o the property to xor theoak tree at a a at have been ' 04:.1 that 4 cul-de-sac . .0c.q. ,1,• A , "'r,, a �nnooriiid. M . ,- 4 '' x.,-;;Cy i ', or the board and . 4 ,r, , ` r ' ., ,, , r way that acceaa could i'''. .0,1iN4/4. � ', " ,1 t,? VI000 the way the . , ,-p� d�q ty o motion 2 9 0 '.. ' � iS �� (�,' .,.I�ti�{4�+1tonC�' F. - 7 3 iV aA 1j1 h e'irt. at the word "City 4, �p ril No. 4 that the "trash , ,;1 r 'V„�:? puildinc►t3."• The ,r ' 4�z . ..v unanimous• The ., DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8OA1D MINUTES dune 2, 1986 1. That a finalized development schedule be provided. 2, That final plans illustrate all building elevations. 3. That trash enclosures be sided with the same material as the buildings. 4. That a final tree cutting plan showing all trees proposed to be cut or saved be provided. 5. That the landscape plan illustrate the use of st*;eet trees along all street frontages where there are not existing trees. G. That an irrigation plan prepared to meet or exceed the standards of the Turf Irrigation Manual be Provided. 9. That final drainage and utility plans, prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer be provided. 0. What easements for all public utilities on the site be provided prior to occupancy, or prior to the acceptance of public utilities, whichever: occurs first. 9. That the applicant widen Davis Lane to 24' to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 10. That lighting plans be finalized to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 11, That fire hydrant locations be to the satisfaction of the City Piro Marshall. 12. That a final soils report and construction measures consistent with that report. be provided. Sections through graded right-of-way areas shall be provided as determined to be necessary by the City engineer. 13. That signage plans be finalized and that the identification sign not exceed 16 sq. ft. 14. That a turnaround, and any necessary easements, be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. At this point a five minute break was taken. .5. DEVEt,OPMI;NT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES June 2. 1986 The meeting reconvened to hearing the following requests. PD 04-86-01/VAtt 04-86-041VAR,05-86-06. A request by 'Parr Development co. and Don t.inasay'Eor approval of a <7-let planned development located north àf Lakeview Blvd., south of Rosewood street and about midway between Pffkington and Tualatin streets. }lhe :applicant is a no requesting'approval at a variance to the Transit standard. `ln addition, a,variance to the Access Standard is requested as one lot is proposed with less than 'the 'requfred 25, of`streot frontage (Tax Lot 1700 of 'Tax leap 2 II; ISAC). Lori Maetrantonio explained the applicant's reguaat and pointed out that the site is heavily treed and has an old structure that will be removed. She reviewed the Drainage Standard and said that staff believes the standards have been addressed. Since there are no storm drainage improvements on Lakeview Blvd., the applicant is requesting to utilize the drywall system. Staff is recommending approval of this subject to the soils report that would confirm that there is adequate drainage. She said that staff has done preliminary soils investigation and believes there should be no problem. Ms. Mastrantonio gave a brief summary of the staff report and read the conditions into the record. staff is recommending that the applicant construct 4 street that goes through the site and she said that staff is recommending approval of the Planned Development along with the two variances subject to the tan conditions of approval listed in the staff report. questions and discussion followed regarding the lot frontage variance: nonremonstranco agreements for future improvemonta on Lakeview Blvd.: why half street improvements are not being required: and, whether there was a policy requiring half street improvements, Ms. Mastrantonio and .terry Baker. 'traffic coordinator explained that there are no improvements along the east side of the property end that the staff felt the best way to have Lakeview Blvd. improved wan to have it done all at. once. Mr. baker said that Lakeview :Blvd. is n collector street and unimproved: so, they are requiring a nonrsmonstranoe agreement so that it will be widened at a more proper time in the future to avoid a patchwork affect. Discussion also Pdllcwod between the Board and staff regarding the number a*,d site of lots: the design of the proposed Street; and, the cul-de-sac. PROPONENTS sill McMona le 1255.5 S. W. stall Blvd. Ti and OR. Representing Parr Development company came forward and expla nod the project. He addressed the nonremonstranc& for the improvements on Lakeview Blvd. and said that he felt half streets would not work an Lakeview Blvd. because it is so flat in profile And it would not drain. Mr. McMonaglor acid they have no problem with the Staff' recommendations 1 -8 and 10 but they question recommendation number 9 relative to the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 'MINUTES June 2, 1986 planting of street trees based 'upon the number of trees existing on ` the site. Discussion followed between staff and the Board regarding the fact that requiring street trees is a Code requirement, Mr. McMonagle answered questions from the Board regarding the Transit ' standard variance: the frontage of Lot 3 (he indicated that it will have the required 25' of frontage), which is a flaglot$ the recommendation that there be a cross-easement on tots 1 and 4 in case there is a possibility of having access for those lote off of the common driveways and, how wide the proposed street will be. OPPONENTS Trish Kimberg, 5177 S. W. Lakeview Blvd, Lake Oswego, OR. Mrs. Kimberg said that they own the acre that is directly next to the site. Their objection that there are too many lots crammed on this site, REBUTTAL - None Since there was no more testimony, Chairman Eslick closed the public hearing portion of the meeting for Board deliberation, Robert C3lackmoro asked Ms. Mastrantonio to clarify what the impprovements to Lakeview Blvd. Are going to be. She said the street Will be widened to 20 ft. along the site's frontage. He went on to ask whether by "nonremonstranco agreement for future street improvements" it meant to Indicate also sidewalk improvements? Ms. Mastrantonio said the condition should more accurately road, "for future improvements on Lakeview or future street and sidewalk improvements", Discussion followed between Mr. Blackmore and Jerry Baker regarding the half circle to get access into the 25'; Whether the Fire Marshall had reviewed this. Mr. Baker explained the half cul-de-sac and said that the Fire Marshall had reviewed it and had found no problem with the design of the half eel-de-sae.. that the eel-de-sac was designed half the equivalent of what the hammerhead would be so there would be plenty of room for maneuverability of emergency equipment. Discussion followed as to where the internal street light is located since there were not any photometrics submitted. Ms. Mastrantonio said that the location of the light fixture will be indicated on the final plat according to Staff specifications. Mr. Blackmon) had questions regarding the setback along the property between the proposed project and the Kimberg Property; and, whether sidewalks along the frontage to the now road were proposed. Ms. Mastrantonio said the setback for the R-5 tone is 10 feet for all yards and that the plans show concrete approach and aprons and show a our foot wide concrete sidewalk which ahoUld be five feet wide. A, bikepath and/or sidewalk are part, of the future improvements along Lakeview Blvd. .7. DEVELOPMENT REvIEW BOARD MINU'T) S June 2, 1986 1. Chairman Eslick feels that in designing the subject parcel of land, the developer has put as Many lots into site the as possible by the use of flaglots, He feels that this is probably not the best design standards that could be used; and, that there is a little bit of everything used and no one direction in the design for the site, At this point, he asked the board to direct their attention to the two flaglots. Mr. pinch said that he has no problem with the flaglots because he thinks they have always made sense, but,. he does share the same concerns regarding cramming so many lots on one parcel. chairman Uelick said when counting the driveway as part of the area of the flaglot, the actual buildable space is very minimal. Discussion followed between the board as to whether the development_ • met the square footage requirement and Mr, tllackmore asked staff 1 whether there is a specific ordinance that talks about how we calculate square footage on flaglots. Ms, Mastrantonie said that she would chock. In the meantime, the Transit Standard was discussed and Chairman Eslick said he has a problem with that standard because the nearest transit is half a mile away. Mr. blackmore said that he did not have any problem with either of the variances, but concurs with Chairman ' Eslick and Mr. Finch that the design of this parcel is not the beet. He is also concerned about the 10 foot setback on the adjacent property because if that property does develop in the future, the backyard setbacks would be very small. Mr. t3lackmore feels there is some option to increase that but there is not. enough land. The Board was in agreement with Condition No. 3 requiring the nonremonstrance agreement for future improvements on Lakeview Blvd, Ma. Mastrantonio, at this time, said that she could not find anything that defines lot area in the Planned Development section. Chairman G l ck asked Whether the Board was go under the assumption that a i a k kt our h k3o r a ton h the easement can be figured as part of the lots. Ma. Mastrantonie said she does not see anything in the code prohibiting that. M . Mastranton, o indicated she would check the definition of lot area. The Board discussed rear yard setbacks along Lots 2, 3, 5 and 6. Mr. Blackmore feels that in other developments and throughout the City the setback has always boon more than lU foot and the way this design is Figured, you'd only have enough room on Lots 5 and 6 and still have a building envelope. Chairman Selick said that ho is very concerned about the maneuvering of cars into garages, etc. with the tight of a design and small size of lots, .per 11111. DEVELOPMENT_REVIEW BOARD MINUTES June 2, 1906 At this point, Ms. Mabtrantenio said that in the Development Code under GOC 49.015, definition Number 26, definition of Got, it statez. that, "Any continuous area tract or parcel of land owned or held in one distinct ownership undivided by a dedicated street or alley or another ownership, except as otherwise specifically provided. Any abutting lot or lots in the same ownership shall be considered one lot." so basically, any contiguous tract of land in one distinct ownership. Disaussicn hollowed between the Board and staff regarding whether this was a crosseasement of an ownership. Chairman Bolick said that it Was- a crosseasement, an easement across property. Mr. Blackmore said that if its held in one thens would not apply in this case. to Subsection 32 of the code as, "vendee is an, owner" but it also says legal owner of record. Mt. Ulackmore said that regardless of the other issues, he is concerned with the way the whole project is designed with too many lots on one parcel leaving no room for setbacks or maneuvering of care. Mr. pinch said that he cannot support this development because of the design being so crammed. He said he would support it with one less lot. Chairman Bolick said that this has been his general consensus. There being no further discussion, Mr. Blackmer° made a motion to deny PD 04-86-01 with leave to the applicant to resubmit, within six months, a similar plan taking the Board's comments as to how he might redesign the project. The motion wan seconded by Mr. 2insli and carried unanimously. The consensus of the Board in denying this request was that the use of land for a Planned Development is intended to develop open spaces and clustering of spaces not to maximize the square footage of a number of lots; and, that there is a better design for this site than What was submitted. PD 03-86-01. A request by Consulting Engineering Services, acting as agent for Shelter Development Co. for approval of a 33-lot planned development located south of South shore Blvd., west of ureentree Road, north of Groentree circle and east of Wail Street. (Tax Lot 101 of Tax Map 2 1 9UC and Tax Leta 2806, 20)0, 2900 and 299U of Tax Map 2 lE 9DD). Ms. Maatrantonio distributed a letter from the geotechnical engineer and from two nearby property owners. She said that there are no variances to the yard requirements except for rear yard setbacks on Lots 13 and 14 asking that they may be reduced from 25 to 10 feet. -9. tiLVSLDPMSNm_REVIEW HOARD MINUTES June 2, 1986 She then gave a brief summary of the state report addressing the soils/ slopes/ the proposed streets; sidewalk/ and, the hammerhead streets. Mr. Baker, came forward and explained that the city Engineer prefers hammerheads to cul-do-sacs because of maintenance and drainage, etc. uecause of the possible problems with kill, the City would like the option to leave the decision as to whether the streets will have cul-do-sacs or hammerheads to tole tine' stages of design, Ms.. Maetrantonio said that staff is recommending approval of this request with 17 conditions of approval. PROPONENTS John C3odaey, Consulting engineering Services, 12655 S. W. center, #360, Beaverton, OR '97d05. Mr, Gcdsoy gave a brief! review of their request and addressed the steep slopest the potential landslide hazard Area/ the stream corridor, and, the proposed streets and hammerheads vs. cul-de-sacs. Ho explained the ways in which they propose to deal with these problems to minimize the impact on the site. Mr, Oodsey said that they endorse staff recommendations but ask some consideration regarding the street widths and the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Ctodsey answered questions from the Board, Jim Motel, 2239 N. W. Irvine, Portland, OR. Se is half owner of a piece of property on the northwest corner of this development. Mr. Rebel said that he is in favor of the request but had a few questions regarding how the adjacent property will be developed. oPPOSI'rrON Elizabeth Ross, 1501 Woodland Terrace, Lake Oswego. She pointed out her property on the mop and said- that she is concerned about the landslide hazard and water runoff of the subject site. Mrs. Rees would like something put in the approval regarding a prudent surface water management program especially in the landslide area. L,oeta Uuntting, 1395 Cherry Crest, Lake Oswego. She lives on the cOrncr of Cherry crest an6 Creontree. " Ma. HunttinU expressed concerns regarding the stream and the drainage ditch on her side of the otroott and, that when improvements on Groentree occurs that the developer put in the bikepath. Donna, Forell► 1308 Greentroc Road, Lake Oswage. She also expressed concerns regarding the drainage, landslfde hazards and Condition of Approval No. 1U. DEVELOPMENT REV/NW BOARD MINUTES June 2, 1986 Blanc: Brinkley, 1430 Woodland Terrace, Lake Oswego. Be explained Where his property is located in relation to the project and said that he is concerned about the quality of the neighborhood; the views from his houset and, removal of trees, Nancy Arnzen, 1411 Groontree Circle, Lake Oswego. She pointed oUt her property and expressed concern regarding water problems, Mrs. Arnzen said that they have a natural spring that runs underneath their house all year around. She does not object to the project but ' would like the developer to take note that there a great deal of natural springs in this area. iton Better, 1405 _Greentree_Circle, Lake Oswego. Be wanted to know the advantage or the disadvantage of the hammerhead or cul-de-sac. Mr. Baker explained, Mr. potter said that hie concern is removal of trees. OTHER Marlin Dofaas, 1425 Cherry Crest Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97034. Mr, DeHaaa came forward and said that he is a resident of the area and is also involved with developing some property to the west on South Shore and toward the Lake. He asked questions regarding the street widths and bikeway since he will be submitting an application for Development Review Board consideration in the near future. Mr. Baker said that the street would be 36' and that the City would like to have South Shore :developed in its entirity because thorn is going to be a lot of grade problems and a lot of soils problems. Mr. DeHaas also had questions regarding drainage on South Shore being extended for continuity in the future. Ms, Mastrantonio said that it is covered under Condition No. 5 and No. 15. Discussion followed between the Board and Mr. Dances. REBUTTAL John Godeeyy, Consulting Engineering Services, Mr. Godsoy addressed the landslide hazards in the report; referenced the recommendations by the sails engineer on how to handle those hazards, including the water runoff and individual drainage per lot. Be said that they will follow the recommendations of the soils report and try to mitigate the impacts. They propose to construct a storm drain along the southern boundary of the property that will not only intercept ground water but will also tie in the drainage from the lots; street drainage and the catchbasinn for the hammerheedu or cul-do-,sacs; and, lot drainage from the roof. Regarding the size density, setbacks and, tree cutting, ha said that setbacks are 25 feat; the one factor that will impact in saving trees is Whether hammerheads or col-de-saes are constructed. No further stated that extension of the storm drain will: be left up to the City Engineer and went on to point Out the -Il- DEVNGONMNN't' REVIEW HOARD MSNU'r;5 June 2, 1946 elevations of the lots on a map to demonstrate that they will not restrict views of the adjoining residences. Mr. Codsey answered questions from the Board regarding hammerheads vs, cul-de-sac, grading, cut and fill. There being no further testimony or discussion, Chairman Bolick closed the ;public hearing portion for Board deliberation. Regarding storm drainage, water and sewer, Chairman Bolick said that he felt that there should be a specific condition covering those items. He also asked if the applicant had submitted a streetlight design. Ms Mastrantonio said that there had not. Chairman Bslick said that he has always been opposed to hammerheads. It is his opinion that, although they may be more economical to build, aesthetically they are not good and do not function as well. He is more i.n favor of cul-de-sacs. Chairman > slick asked the Board Whether they felt it should be left up to staff to come up with a solution to have cul-de-sacs or hammerheads. Mr. Blackmer° said that he agrees with Chairman Enl,ick but does not feel a decision can be made on what has been presented this evening. He feels from what he has heard in the testimony, that if a cul-de-sac is built as opposed to a hammerhead, it can be a major impact on the entire project. Jerry Baker said that the City is presently in favor of hammerheads because of the nafetY factors involved; fill would be required on the cut-de-sacs. The City in concerned with the mitigating impacts this might have. Mr. Baker said that when the roads are put in and the land is cleared, then it will be easier to see whether a cul-de-sac can be put in; therefore, the City would like to leave this option open. Discussion followed between the Board and Mr. Baker regarding whether it would be better to reword Condition No, 9 and the cul-de-sacs vs. hammerheads. Mr. Baker stated that the City Engineer prefers to have the wording of Condition No. 9 as it is written. Mr. Pinch asked for clarific, tion of the requirement for the sidewalk on Greentree Road, Mr. Baker explained situation an it now stands and said that the situation Will be assessed as it ha hens. It Will either be a route or a bikepath and there will he a btlsepath on either side of Greentree. Ms. Mastrantonio said that Comprehensive Plan illustrates a bikopath along Greentree and the Bikepath Committee has recommended a bikepath along Greentree, Discussion followed regarding the improvements on Creentroe; the internal streets; location of sidewalks: and, what, were the code requirements regarding sidewalks. Discussion followed as to whether to table this request to the next meeting in order to give the staff enough time to work with the applicant to work out a solution on the cul-de-sac vs. hammerhead situation and to submit the information to the Board. -12 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW HOARD MINUTES June 2► 1986 Mr. alackmore made a motion to continue this request to the June 16, 1986 Development Review Board meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Finch and the motion carried for continuation to the June 16th meeting. GENERAL PLANNING Discussion followed as to whether the Board should hold a special meeting to review the Findings and the Minutes. The consensus of the Board was to set up a special meeting to review and sign the backlog of Findings and Minutes There being no further business, chairman Eslick adjourned the meeting at 11:32 p,m. Respectfully submitted, r fi 1,/,/, 9 Marian stulken Recording Secretary t r.' 3969P/maa .13 r.