Loading...
Approved Minutes - 1986-08-28 rl bp � � o D CITY OP I AKB u$Wi:GO 041, DEVlaLOPMI NT REV/OW BOARD MYNUTEs August 28, 1986 The special meeting of the Development Review Board Was called to order by Chairman Richard tslick at 8:30 a.m. in the City Hall Conference Room. Board members present were chairman Richard Fslick► Curtis Pinch, Kenneth zinsli, Vern Martindale and Robert ulackmoro. Staff present were Development Review Planner Lori Mastrnntonio; Assk.c, ate Planner Renee Dowlin; and, secretary Marian Stulkon. The purpose of the meeting was to review and consider the Findings, Conclusion and Order for: - VAR 26-86-07/VAR 27-06-07 (Morriss and Carol Webb); - VAR 05-86-02/VAR 30/VAR 31/VAR 32/VAR 33/VAR 39/VAR 40-86-07 and SD 12-86-08 (Robert nd Liz Yates); - DR 05-86-03 (Fu Ming Yang); - PO 04-06-01/VAR 04-8a-04/VAR 0$-06-06 (Carr Dev. Co. ); VAR 20-86-06 (Eric Randolph). Discussion followed between the Board and staff regarding the format for the findings presented. The Board requested that City Attorney Jim Coleman be present during this discussion in order to answer any legal questions involving the format. A brief discussion between Mr. Coleman and the Board toilowed regarding the reasoning behind the findings format. After this discussion, it was the consensus of the 'Board that a workshop should be held some time in the near future to review and discuss the format. VAR 26-86-07/VAR 27-86-07' Mr. Finch mad* a motion to approve e:.:O Findings, Conclusion and Order for VAR 26-86-07/VAR 27-86-07-379. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martindale and the motion carried 4 - 1 with Mr, ulackmore abstaining. VAR 20-86-06 zn the middle of the second page beginning, "request not mandatory to prevent unnecessary hardship" - substitute "necessary" for "mandatory". Just before "ORDBR"► add a statement that the Board reminded the applicant that the boathouse was not allowed under the approved Village on the take Plan. Mr* Blackmore moved for approval of the Findings, Conclenitnn and Order for VAR 20-86-06-377 am amended. The motion wan seconded by Mr. Finch and carried unanimously. 1 _ .... .... a -.. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW suARD August 28, 1986 VAR 05„86-03 The Board reviewed the minutes of duly 7th, at which time this application was heard, and decided to add under "ORDER" wording regarding the west window configuration being constructed as shown in Option 2. After correction, Mr. 2innli made a motion to approve the .Findings, Conclusions and Order for VAR 05-8.6-U3-374 as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Blackmore and carried with a vote of 4 -1 with Mr. Martindale abstaining. Pb 04-86-01/VAR 04-86.04/VAR 05-86-06 Mr. alackmore made a motion to approve the Findings, Conclusions and Order for Pe 04-86-01/VAR 04-86-04/VAR U5-86-U6-365. The motion was seconded by Mr. Zinsli and carried with a vote of 4 - 1 with Mr. Martindale abstaining. VAR 05-86-02 VAR 30-86-07 VAR 31-86-07 VAR 32-86-07 VAR 33-86-07 VAR -07yVAR 4U-86-U7 SU 12-8G-U8 Mr. Dlackmore made a motion to approve the 'indingn, Conclusions and Order for VAR 05-86-02/VAR 30-06-07/VAR 31.86.07/VAR 32-86-07/VAR 33-86-07/VAR 39-06-07/VAR 40-86-07/SD 12-86-08-380. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martindale and carried 4 - 1 with Mr. Pinch abstaining, There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9;20 a.m, Respectfully submitted, . 3 Marian Stulken Recording Secretary } 40451) `2 _ m L&\.!IIID\Vill 0 I) CITY OP LAKE USW1:0 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD m/NDTER August 18, 1986 The Development Review Board meeting of August 18) 198E was called to order by Chairman Richard `Rslick at 7134 p.m, Membora present were Chairman Eslick, Vern Martindale, Kenneth 7.insli and Mobort l3lackmore. Staff present were Development Review Planners Lori Mastrantonio and Robert Galantet Associate Planner Renee Dowlint Deputy City Attorney Sandra Duffy; and seoretary Marian Btulkon, APPROVAL OP MINUTES Mr. Zinsli made a motion to consider the July 21, 1986 and Augunt 4r 1986 minutes at the end of the public hearing portion of the agenda, The motion was seconded by Robert Slackmore and carried unanimously. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICAT'ION8 - None Mr. Qalanto gave a brief procedural review for public hearings. PUBLIC HE;ARINC3' VAR 05-86-02/VAR,30-86-07/VAR 31-86-0//VAR 32-8641/VAR_33-06-07/VAR 39-86-07/VAR 40-86-07 & SD 12-86-U8, a request by Robert & Liz Yates. This is a continuation of a hearing' held on July 21, 1986. jt�hone: requests involve variances for restrictions placed on expanding„ noncom?orming ;ntructuress, 'tront and roar setbacks, lot'coverage, special street setback requirements and reduction or yard areas below the minimum requirements for the site located 'at 13J7 Cake Fronk Road' (TL 80u or 'CM 2 1E 1uCA) Me Dowlin presented a letter from Don Burdick of the Lake °Owego Corporation (exhibit lq); a letter from Herald Campbell (exhibit 11)s and, 30 letters from property owners in the area in support of this request (kxhibite 12-39) She gave a brief overview of the staff report. Staff recommends approval oi; the lot line adjustment and .coven variances with conditions. PROPONENTS Robert and Lix Yates, 037 Lake Front Rd. Lake Onwoeo. Mr. & Mra. xatee presented siidos' (Exhibit 40) and highlighted, through. diagrams, the o;t.isting lot coverage and proposed lot coverage (Exhibit 41). They also explained drainage, existing structure, the amount of vegetation and landscaping that would remain (ixhibit 42). C. Herald Campbell,. 1219 8. W. Maple Lake Oswego. Mr. Campbell reiterated hie letter or August 10, II (Exhibit 11) and spoke in ; favor of the variances and lot Line ad3ustmont. -1- #fEVCLOPMLNP REV-ii.w BOARD MTNUWS:I Aunust lg, 1 'n6 PROPONENTS Robert Rangy, 1475,IIoreo Shore Curvy Lake_Oewega. Mr. i;ucdy inquired an to how the propoeed'lot .line adjustment would affect the newly constructed decks on the Swim Vaaorent property. Mn. Dowlin okplhined that the lot line adjUntment would shift the property lino) one foot t# they roust at that point and would place the deoRA even further from the property line. There being no further testimony, Chairman Bolick closed the public portion of the public hearing for,Heard deliberation, chairman Gulick and Mr. iilae:kmore both asked tot o planation and reasoning behind the breakaway handrail, Mn. uowiin read a memo from Jerry baker, City Traffic Coordinator to the Hoard for clarification (iixhihit ti) . Ms. Duffy okpitsined that it in a matter of who in liable becaune it in In the right of way. There is mere danger to the ,paaaengero of the oar than to the occupants of the house. Chairman teliok fools that there hen boon many ehangen to the docks to the carport) and the presentation of the problems and their remedies. kMr. 2inali said that he supports all the variances except the additional 'square footage. He fuelo that the variance for the additional square footage does not meet the hardship otitetia and it in not the minimum variance te, make reasenablo use of the property, Mr. Martindale fools that the hardship can be justified by adding a few square font that could make it more liveable. Mr. I#lackmore referred to the code regarding hardship and said that the physical circumstances existed long before the Yates' bought the property and will continue to a riot. he rattle that the Yates' have shown that a hardship ekieta. Chairman Bolick concurs with Mr, Martindale with the overall design of the project And agrees that the hardships already existed when the property was purchased. Ho fools that the applicant hail addressed all the concerns that• the Board had at the preevicue meeting. Mr. Martindale, at thin time, asked the applicant if they had reviewed the recommendations of the staff. Mrs. Yates said that they had and had a question regarding the plantings in or the hedge. $he explained the reasons they had planted then°. and said that they had talked with start regarding these. staff recommends that the applicant work with the City on choosing a plant that would not cause a vision clearance ha ;ard. Chairman Esliek and Mr, Btackmeru agreed that the fact that the applicants have the neighbors approval of the protect demonstrates ., that it is consistent with the neighborhood. .2. l DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD August 18, 1986 Since there was no further discussion Mr. Blnckmore made a motion for approval of SO 12-U6-US and related seven Variances together With Conditions 1 - 4 enumerated by staff in the staff report, Mr. Martindale seconded the motion and the motion carried 3 - 1 with Mr. xinali voting in opposition. The conditions are es follows; 1. That the retaining Wall along the southern boundary ho designed, and constructed by a registered engineer. 2. That the stairway loading down from take Front Road shell have a breakaway handrail and be approved by the Traffic Coordinator. The breakaway handrail must be designed by a structural engineer or equivalent. 3, Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) be specified on legal instruments for title transfer and be recorded with the Clackamas County Clerk's Office. The legal descriptions for the parcel shall reference thin land une application -- City of Lake Oswego Planning Department Pile No. VAR 05-U602/VAtt 30-06-07/VAR 31-06-07/VAR 32-86-07/VAR 33-56-07/VAtt ) 3'3-UG-07/VAR 40-06-07/SD 12-86-08. 4. That the deck located on take Corporation property shall be constructed in a manner that allows it to be removed to facilitate maintenance and repair of the sewer line under ouwego take. The piers and pilings associated with the dock shall be designed to not conflict with the sewer line. Since the applicants for the nest item on the agenda were not present, Mr. lllackmore moved that the American tube Co./Greenhill Associates be moved to the last item en the agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. tineli and carried. Pi) 07-06-04/VAR 29-86-07/VAR. 37-86-07/VAR 38-86-07. A request by Dr. Ohalam Maleki ( r�o arty owner) and OTAK► Inc. (agento for owner) for etapprovii of a 22-,lot p anne cove opment requ r ng a 50 radius or cul-de-Sacs. The applicant is are osin an 8% cross slope for the u port on of the propose cu a-sac & a rU retulus. The a ) licant :is also roc uestin approval to modify the originar Mt. Park anne Un Dave! opment. The s to is located north of Jefferson Parkway, east of Portland Comnunity; Coliege and west of Cervantes Road (Block 5U, Multnomah county, Tax Map 4224). Ms. Mastrantonio presented a totter front Jan Tuckorman and John Simmons (Exhibit 23) and a letter from the Mt. park homeowner's Aanocatlon'(Exhibit 24) . She said that at the August 4th hoard' .3. Dsv2D0PMENT ktiVIMw B0MW August l8, 19 6 meeting, staff had presented a letter from the Mt. Park Homeowner's Association similar to the one just presented into the record. There Was a question as to whether or not the City adopted the CCSC.'n. staff has gone through the record and found that they had not been adopted by the City. The City's position in that if there are conflicts between what the developer proposes and what is in the CC&it's that, it in a matter between the developer and the homeowner's association, Staff recommends approval of thin project with five foot side yard setbacks and with lei of the proposed lots having no setbacks along at least one of the property lines. Since the Mt. park PUU approval required buffering along all boundaries except for along Cervantes, the Staff recommends an additional condition of approval be added to require the buffering. The Board asked for clarification of nide yard setbacks. She explained the side yard setback and said that the original proposal had five feet between structures. The original staff report dincuoned the Uniform Building Code requirement of having a total of nix feet between structures. The applicant has revised their drawing and illustrate at leant a three foot setback On each side yard totaling nix feet. Mr. "Linsli expressed concern that special conditions were to be Aapplied to an overall panned unit Development. Ma. Mantrantonio explained that, this in an originally approved PUU and according to the ordinance that implements the PUP, certain requirements need to be met. One of the requirements states that if you develop single family units, the SR le underlying zone at that time would have to be complied with. When submitting a new PUt7 overlay the applicant then has to modify the original PUU7 and in doing so, the standards required by the SR 10 zone must be modified. chairman Bolick asked Ms. Mantrantonio to clarify the setback requirement° for the original approval. She explained the notbacks and said that the original approval was for 35 townhouses. Discussion followed between the Board and staff whether thin wan a PUB within a PUP) whether the Mt. Park open apace requirements needed to be addressed, what power the Mt. Park Homeowner's Association had in stopping construction on this prolectt and, whether the Development Review Board decision had precedence over the Homeowner's Association. Mr. Blackmore : 'iid, in hie opinion, thin is a private matter and this application .hnuld be reviewed as u modification of the original approval. Legal Counsel explained that the Board should consider this matter under their criteria. If the itomoowner's Aenooiation has more restrictive provisions under their CC&R's, then they must deal with it privately. The CC&it's do not, apply to this particular phaue, Ms. Mautrantonio said that this is a modification to the original Mt. Park PUP not a PUP within a PUB, so therefore, the Mt. Park Open Space requirements had already boon met, -4, ' bEVBLOPMGNT >aev/EW soaks August 18, 198 pROPONLN'P Newtael Othrnant °TAK/ inc.► P. O. ,Box 1375, ,Ltake Oawe o. Mr. nthmnn Came forward representing the applicant Mr, Malcki, tie e eve 4 brief historical background of the proJeet and explained this is a modification or the orlginai Mt. Perk POD, Mr, Qthmnn said they have mot several tines with the iiomeawnerrn Anuoclation in trying to addreen their concerns. Kamiar baraee raaltor with tlandei,s ltasnen 6 Jones, Inc. , c^ne forward represent_ng Mr. Maleki. ' He gave a hietbrY of the aequiaition of the property, explained the nature of the project and answered questions from the board, Don, Hanson, °TAR, tnc. , P. 0, Box 13',9, take Oswego, Mr, Hanson distributed` p ,ana elaborating the scheme' of the project, Bo explained the reasenn they chose this schemer the access roads the requested variance for the proposed cul-de-sae at the end of the roads and, the variance for the access tract°. Mr. Hannon paid that there would be a Pedeetrien pathway in one of the access tracts that would extend from the night of way through the project complementing the Mt. Park Open Space plan creating pedestrian circulation from Cervantes over to the existing pndesLrian trail, The Hoard inquired 40 to why there was not a Variance request to the Transit standard, Ms. Mastrantonio said that according to the Applicrint'e narrative, there is a bun atop nearby, The proposed sidewalk would connect Mt, Park to the bus stop, thereby meeting the standard. Diacuuoion followed regarding the location of the bun atop, It was determined that there wee no bus stop nearby on doffereont therefore, a variance is neceausary, Dale 'Krenge, 12335 A. W. Oxbow Terrace Beaverton, OH, He in a lot owner directly adjacent to t se proposed development, 4r, krengo said he has been a Owner of property since 197G and feels that this proposal in a better development that the townhousos, hocause it Provides a batter density situation and better use of the, property. Nawxadd Othrnen, carve forward to answer questioner regarding the 'VirEllhee to the Tranuit Standard. He said that the walkway/pathway oyntem arcs adopted by ordinance Do all the pro eeotn conform to that original ordinance, The Mt, Park PUl) plans adapt the sidewalks and Sidewalk locatlonn by ordinance and the ordinance r,overaa whore then location of thee° sidewalks are. Discussion EoA,lowed ad to why the sidewalks are proposed to be property line sidewalks. Mr, Oth►tcn said that the reasons the sidewalks are property lino Sidewalks is duo to the topography of the' aito„ .sue 4,1kDEVELOPNENT stEYIEW LDARD August 18, 1986 OPPONENTS Bob Ericsson, #2 Mt. Jefferson 'Terrace, t.uke Oswego, Executive Manager of the Mt. Park Homeowner's Association, He asked that the letter of August 18, l�fl3G, submitted this evening, could be placed in the record. Mr. Ericsson explained the general principle and concept by which a Homeowner's Association operatest and, the procedure to change or modify a provision of the Mt. Park Declaration of Restrictions. He said that it would take a change to the Mt, park Declaration to approve any building plans for a lot within the proposed Lilly Park Planned Development, In the pant when the City has made changes to the Mt. Park PUD, the process has been that an amendment was filed to the Declaration of Restrictions under Article TWO of the Declaration which, allowed the declarant and it's successors to make changes to the Declaration. That provision expired in January of 1983 and their attorneys informed them that the only way that the Declaration can be modified, and in effect, change the square footage requirement and the setback requirement, will be through a majority vote of the membership. The first opportunity for the Association to review this matter will be at the annual meeting in March of 1987. Until they gat a change in the Declaration, they cannot approve any building permits for this property. He asked the board not to approve the proposal. until such time as the lot sizes ,and setback requirements are brought into compliance With the Homeowner's Association Declaration or such time an it can be changed. Discussion and questions followed from the Board regarding the process for changing the Declaration, Barbara Hermanson, 323 Cervantes( take Doweyo, a resident came 'orward and said that she supports the position of the Mt. Pork Homeowner's Association but she does support the change from townhouses to single family dwellings. REBUTTAL Nawzad Othman. He addressed the concerns of the Homeowner's Association and said that their intent is to work with them to resolve problems that exist. Mr. Othman said that the project is consistent with the neighborhood and trying to achieve density, any loss would be economically very prohibitive. There being no further testimony, Chairman Hulick closed the public Portion of the hearing for Board deliberation. Chairman snuck said that most of the single family area in Mt. Park have larger lots and it does not seen to have had an detrimental economical effect. He feels the lots look a little small especially when the applicant is asking for variance to setback lines. Mr, Martindale said that he is not convinced that a hardship exists and it looks as though they are trying to squeeze a maximum number of .6. DIVE OPMENNT REVIEW BOARD August ia, 1906 lots out of a minimum apace. Mr. tinnli and Mr, ulackmore agree with Mr, Martindale that 4 ha dshi.p has ,not boon proven, however, the plan have gone tram a condominium project to single family dwellings reducing the number of units. They feel coverage on the site in higher but the impact on the neighborhood has been lowered and that this protect would have lean of an impact overall, Chairman t;sltck eaid he also agrees that juatit?ication for on economic hardship has not been demonstrated, The hoard, at this timer discussed the economic hardehip criteria and whether the apP licant had adreesed the criteria in the application. Ms. Mastrantonla said that the criteria is addressed in a letter from the applicant exhibit il), Mr. slackmore asked the applicant to come forward and address the criteria. Mr, Othman said the provisions in the City code allows a flexibility to vary from the standards. He indicated that the issues in thin matter are more site specific and address design, physical constraintr slopes and grading. 1iecusssion followed regarding) a possible better design incorporating; the criteria that the owner is addreduing. Chairman Salick said that the reason that this wad continued was that staff discovered that the Mt. Park fomeowner'n Assaoalation CC&R's had hot been complied with) and also at the fame time, discovered that zero lot line setbacks and .ithe five toot on one side would create a fire wall problem. Mr. elackinore stated that he thought the matter of the CC6R'4 was a Private tense and the City should not be involved. Discussion followed regarding whether the uonmeowner'ss Association had adopted the position on the CC&R's and whether Mr. Gricssson was representing his views or the views of the homeowner's Association. Sob crioseenr representing the Mt. Para homeowner's Association came forward to clarity their position. Re said that the Association does ant have a formal position, They have not passed a resolution in support of changing the CC;liit'ss and as such, the CC&R's are the documents by which the Association operates. Chairman Bolick reiterated the ioeuess that are before the hoard and said that the staff has recommended 14 conditions. Ma, Msssstrasatonio said that the matter of the variance to the 'Transit standard could be handled, possibly as a condition of approval. Chairmain 1U lick, at thie time, expressed concern that the site plan is saturated with too many lots on it, Re said that he in not } concerned with the, road to the eul-do-ese but would like to see fewer single family lots accessing the cul-de-sac. Mr. llackmare said he has not heard enough evidence to support approval of the variances Much lens the design. tibiae there was no further discussion, Mr, ulackmoro roved for deaial of Pa d1-ti6-1JG. the motion was seconded by Mr. Zinali and carried unanimously for denial. r t DEVELOPMENT REVIEPf i3OAiti7 Aliquot 18 1986 VAR 34-86-07. A request by Robert Bailey, Design Group, /no., aetinr as agent iror the Marylhurat Educatlon centere or approval of a variance to allow 'a 50`sq. ft. internally illuminated sign (32 sq. Lt. in ireotly lighted wall ,ssign allowed)' idfntilyinq Marvlhurat College. The sign will be located' on ttwy. 43' et the College ('rn 400 oft` TM .tM 14), across tWie street from 'an unci`evelopeu residential zone, , Mr. Galante gave 4 brief uumtnary of the Staff report and explained the exhibits. He said that staff feels the sign that has been proposed is a well designed sign. State recommends approval of only the variance to type of sign and to the illumination, of the sign because it will not be a letriment to the property across the highway. He said that since the Sign code is a new document representing current council policy; and since, the staff has net considered this type of sign variance in the past, staff could not recommend approval of the size variation. Be then rend the suggested conditions of approval into the record should the Board decide in favor of all the Variance requests. PROPONENTS Cindy,Neane, 0121 8. W. Bancroft, Portland, tit, from the Hobert Bztlety nesign croup and project coordinator for the eignago. She explained the reasons for the proposed sign; why that location was chosen; the visual irnpactf the intention and design of the eignf visual Access to the neighbors, the setbacks requirements; and, presented drawings illustrating the proposed sign and other proposed signago on the campus OPPONENTS None There being no further testimony, Chairman Bolick closed the public portion of the hearing for Board deliberation. The Board discussed the design of the sign as proposed: th►e concrete base of the sign; whether the illumination of the sign effected the surrounding area; the criteria for a sign variance; and, whether in approving this the Beard would set a precedent. Mr, Galante explained that the criteria for variance for signs is a little different than for other types of variances. Be addressed the four criteria for approving a variance. Mr. Galante said that the Board has to weigh the degree of hardship with the degree of variance, the size of the site and the impact to the Surrounding community, staff would recommend that the hardship would not have to be of very great degree to allow the granting or this variance. The Board can consider whether a hardship will exist by denying the api�lidant a reasonable opportunity to dentify the use in a relatively equal manner accardud the other members of the community not burdened with -n.. w bevELoPmnNT 1U VIeW Bohn August 1B,, 19e6 ouch unusual and unique arohito tual desii_gn, building site or other ctrcumstance43. Since there was no further dincuunion, Mr. %inell made a motion to approve VAS 34-B6-07 era requested with conditions 1 - 3 as recommended by staff, aye stated. the all night illumination would not be detrimental, Mr. Martindale ueconded the motion and it carried unnnimounly, The condition° aro An f'ollowC 1, That a final dinenai.oned site plan be provided which moots vision clearance requireMente ti3OC 48,53O) . 2. That the hours of illumination be provided to the uatisfaotion of ntaff+ 3. That the applicant demonstrate to +:he ataff's oatiafaotion how overall campus nignago will be coordinated. - Mn. Maatrantonlo, at this time, asked for a clarification on another matter. She said that nine's the hoard denied the Parr uovelopment application without prejudice, would the applicant need to submit a new application or would they hove to wait nix months. A brief diucunaion followed and the consensus of the hoard wan that they Could uubMit the same requent in n1X months but they could nubmit a how` auhatantially modified application any time. 17_ 17.06-O7. �A resent by °Tax, Inc. for approval of a remodel and an agile Lion to an ex nt nt Du11d1n, located in the Industrial parTc" one ,a J "teonen •err i s 19p Y�ne l4ar�y5�+` 6.0 ►11S)ttyr Mr. Galante gave a brief summary of staff report and road the conditions of approVnl into the record, Staff recommends approval with teen conditions,' PROPONONT Tom Hammers ()Tax inv. P. O. Box 1379 Lake caw° o. Mr, Hammen e3x Ta no tee tome o an au t on o t e ex et ng building, lit# further explained the landacnping and zhe drainage system. Mr, Hammen addressed the conditions of asp roVa1 nu nested by staff and said that they agree with Conditions 1, 2, 30 4, 5, 7, U and lO Number nix bass been omitted. lie real►ondud to Condition 9, regarding the aignege designs, stating that they proposed two aigna because they feel that both driveways need to be identified from both directions. Mr, lla►nman aaid that he dincuauod thin with Mr. Galante ' and wan told that it could be an administrative (Clans r) variance, if he ban direction from. the Board, 40 explained the kind of a sign ' 0-4iotV] LOPMENT anV21W nUARll Au9eet 1936 they proposes the reason they would need two shiner and, answered questions ,from the board regarding the square footage or the building and the color of the remodel, binouscion followed regarding the oigns and whether a one-niched aign would comply with the Sian Code. Mr, Galante said chat it would still be a 32 ng, foot sigh whether you put oignago on one side or both olden, he said the direction the Hoard should give should be very general since there in no varianeo rappiication at this time, The staff will review and conoidor the Variance application on its own merits, UYPUNRNTB - Bone Thorn being no further testimony, Chairman I,elick oloeoti the public portion of the hearing for Board deliberation Discussion between the Applicant and the 0o4rd followed regarding Condition Bo, 3 requiring street trees, The coneonauo of the Board wren that the double 0ignng0 would be appropriate for the two driveways/ and that since the applicant woo inntailing a sidewalk, otr, It trees should be planted. Singe there wen no further disc>uasion, Mr, flnckmoro made n motion to Approve bit 17-86-07 with Conditions i, 2, 9, 5, 7, q and 10 ne ,rocommended by staff with the deletion of Conditions 3, G and 9, The motion woo seconded by Mr, Uinoli and curried unnnilnounly. The eonditiono, are as follows;, 1, That a development schedule be provided to the nta. f►n satisfaction, 2, That the 5, sidewalk along Boones Ferry head meander to avoid polon and to provide eeperAtiun rrom the curbs where possible, to the satisfaction of the city Enginoor, 3 That a 10' buffer area be landocapud along the northeast parking lot edge ,and that the treatment of the "vacant" Area be specified on plans, 4 That an irrigation plan be provided to the satisfaction of Staff, 5, That all setbacks be dimensioned and be hinted An "enirating° Or "proporzerl". 5 That walkways in parking arson be widened to atnff'n aatiakfaction where bumper overhang restricts clearance* «.10- fi r b ;VLtOPMLNP" 1t1VIeW 13(11`14,1), AU(lunt 10 f 1966 1 7. That pollution control taatchbanina be used to i collect runoff!. i nip 10-06C-UG. A request by the Lake Grove Christian Church for a royal of the remodel et the exterior racnda:°ot the Church located a . 5 uarr Ron . 'iG 7.uU o TM 2 in 7AD . Mr. Galanto gave a brief summary of the staff report and annwerod questions re0arding the door and sidelights. Staff recommends approval of thin project. p}%oPoNgw!r8 ,. Mons OPPONLNP'8 - None Since there wan no testimony from either opponents or proponents, Chairman Melick cloned the public portion oe the hearing for hoard deliberation. Mr. Olackmore moved for approval of DR IU-BG-su. The motion was necondoo by ,Jr. Martindale and carried unanimously. A five minute break wan taken at thin time. Thu mooting reconvened to nonnider the following requests. VAR 28-U6-07/VAit 41-06- 0 VAR 42.06-00. __A_rt uest b Thomas and Boman R l inoon at iull 1,11 eFront head or approval of a variance to eliminate the required 2!)c rear yard setback. idditfonnlly, ?sin rocuent inclucian a variance to the: 25' setback reiuixed alone°swage pa e,, moanure irom t e propert no tanc alma to variance to the code reatrintionn placed can expann oati o, a no eon urm nq n, rue are' 1400, 'PM 2 10 1U0A)+ Mn. fowlin gave a brief nUmmary of the staff report and explained the request. Staff cannot recommend approval of a variance of ouch magnitude: therefore, staff recommends denial and n..z gento that the applicunt consider alternative plants. PROPONENTS Tom Uobinoon 1527 Gnke Profit stead Lake Onwagp. Mr. Abbinnon gave a r e unary 'at the acqu n tiara at the property and an Overview of their proposal. Dennis Matko 1029 S. W. TA lor�,, Portlnndi OR, Mr. Ilatko in the a cri;iT n.tn. t , 0 pro ec 4tar. star expT Tned the remodel design for this project and answered questions from the Board regarding graded; setbacks from the Taker outside elevation of the existing buildings newer lino locations in relation to the residence: and, the estimated coot of the remodel and value or the building. Discussion -11 z . N4 it yr�r i}M1rt.. 1 i 4 ,,'` afiltt, tttJt Z �hE16 t 1i r. ;:ire tn�i whether pr M1� rbt=kihOth r the ran ?0% of 1 ,.•r.',14'., 14,, i TS` � A�� �� � c3 7 ranee to r�� a .tt;i7tri now from. ot i �P � `lert 411, t . °r;oto to +r hardship v!P ~!.i7 vru are other , ' ,,,�.r 1;1;,ii be lather �1. `�!1 ...t impact the ,., q ,3' r,. a,& 'a'?i;d And the N ; a , ootermino whether ktl� �, {ygitt#r tit#ti/et7 • 17 4}. r,a utl 07/ AR 4 • .).0' r. �4 :. ,s'an preoent further S �t r ,,`a me -nardatiip ' he ait x di rt y to table «0,,,tfq„0r,l.„ i hmaraan a it , c An t? 1 Can ., rt ;AccentI l,iax. rata , .n c rita regarding that or night diattinear _. 0 :'i thin request end iiion (Exhibit 20) of ,,i, ;,. on the trite. Mr, ,,,,I-ant addressing the t r`, is based on the toad eight ,,: • 03tar 'a consideration, j DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD , August 18, 1986 Discussion followed between the Hoard and stag as. to What could be done with respect to the sight distance problem, PROPONENTS Hal Hewitt, 173U Skyline Blvd. , Portland, OR 57221. Mr.; Hewitt is i representing American i,ubrfcstion 'Co. He distributed photos (Exhibit ll) illustrating sight vision clearance as it pertains to 1 their property and said that they reel they will be able to affect some improvement by working with State parks Dapartment. Ho suggested that another possible option to improve the sight vision clearance problem would be to submit a letter to the Clackamas County Public Works Department requesting that they consider a "xeild" or s "Stop" sign up from the curve. He then addressed the building design by saying that the architects letter is Very explanatory and addresses thome concerns. Questions and discussion followed between the Board and Mr. Hewitt regarding speed of the care coming around the curve. Willard Ho, 510 N.W. Third , Portland, OR, ► of Evanson and Associates, Architects representing oil can Henrys tie came forward and answered questions from the Board regarding the building designt reversing the building so that the impact of the vertical well would be diminished by having a sloping roof; mechanical equipment on the root'; and, the stairway. He said that reversing the building would create some hardship for the consistent operation of the building. Discussion followed, Jim Sparks, 4450 S. W. ;Upper Drive, Lake Oswego, Oit., Construction Manager for oil' Can Henry a, tie came forward and explained that changing the stairway also changes the interior doors and affects the operation of the store, Mr, Sparks Said that it is going to make it difficult for their employees that go through their training proceao to function in a store that i,s set up differently; and, customers else identify with their building. Discussion followed. Hal Hewitt came forward to reiterate that the American Dube would not be able to build the store if they have to reverse the building becauoo of the internal physical requirements there and the policy of maintaining consistent employee performance. He said the building is not obtrusive, will, not cause disharmony in that end of the community and they are wall within the building height limits for the City. OPPONENTS - None Thor() being no further testimony, Chairman i,slick closed the public portion of the hearing for Board deliberation, DEVELOPMENT REVIDW BOARD August_18, 1986 Chairman Gslick a pressed oonoorn regarding the high wall and the orientation. Se feels that the main concerns ere whether' the building design itself is complementary to the location and Whether the access is safe. Mr. 8lackmore feels that as far as the traffic is concerned that there will be e lot of diffieultY getting the speed lowered on the street and rebuilding the intersection because that will have to be approved by the City end County. He feels no other alternatives to the traffic problem, other than signage, have been presented. Regarding the design, he feels that the applicant has not. demonstrated that it would be a hardship to reVerea the design,of the building Mr. Zinsii and Mr. Martindale both agreed that the applicant had not demonstrated that a hardship would ekist In reversing the building and felt that the applicant had not presented, any options regarding the design, or the traffic problem. A brief discussion followed. Since there was no further discussion, Mr. Zinsli made a motion to deny DR 04-06-02/VAR 06-86-04. The motion was seconded by M . ulackmore. Discussion followed'regarding they board denying this without prejudice in order to give the applicant a chance to bring this back before the Board with a different design. Upon consensus of the Board, the motion was amended to include "without Prejudice". A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously. GENlRAG PLANNING findings, Conclusions and Order DR 03.86-02 (John Godsey/Spoor Development Co.) . Second Vote Mr. Blackmere made a motion to approve the Findings, Conclusions and Order for DR 03-86-02 for the second vote. The motion was seconded by Mr. Zinnli and carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, Chairman Sslick adjourned' the meeting at 1:0u a.m. Respectfully submitted, e/A' /4"/ at" may. Marian Stuiken Recording Secretary :.: 9010p/maa -14- I y I i J � .... u4 I A??., v V ld 1' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES August 4, 1986 1 The Development Review Hoard meeting of August 4, 1986, was called to f` order by Chairman hichard islick at 7t40 p.m. Board members in attendance were. Chairman Kalick, Curtis Pinch, Kenneth Zinsli and Vern Martindale. Staef present were Development Review Planners Lori Mastrantonio and Robert Galante; Deputy City Attorney Sandra Duffy; Associate Planner, Renee Dowlins and Secrotezy, Judy Smith, Mr. Eslick has received a letter from John Glasgow tendering his resignation. The City Council should select another member for the Hoard es soon as possible, APPROVAL OE" MINUTES The minutes of May 19 and June 2, 1986 were presented for co p consideration.n. The Board decided to postpone votingon the minutes until the General Planning portion of the pagenda, PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - The City has received items pertaining to each application and they will be presented with the correspondencing application. PUHLIC HEARINGS VAR 26.06-07/VAC; 27-86-07. A continuation of a request by Norris and Carol Webb or a variance to the required 25'' rear yard- setback to allow an additlonjocatod 'at 133U Hoodview Ln. Additionally► the owners are requoseing a variance to the regulations restricting expansion of nonconforming uses as the existing ntruc-bure is a nonconforming structure (TL 2800 TM 2_.lE 4AC. ' Renee bowlin gave a brief history of the site and gave the Board additional information which consisted of 8xhibits 7-14 (elevations, building sections, cite plan end floor Plans). These had been requested by the Hoard in the last meeting. According to LOC 41.250, applicant must immediately hook up the property to the sewer system. He in also responsible for payment of the Lib assessment and accrued interest. No uilding permit can be issued until the foregoing is paid. The addition which encroaches into the required 25' roar yard setback is for a master bedroom and master bath. The addition is a one-story addition. Clackamas County does not have a record of receiving any variance request for thin parcel. Staff approves recommendation of this variance with the only condition that legal description be specified on legal instrument identifying the variance that has been requested. Applicant Norris M. Webb - Mr. Webb agrees with the Staff report. The. only comment he made was that huy were not aware that the existing back wall was nonconforming, but they are only extending an already existing wall, which in why they need this variance. Would be difficult to add any addition other than where they are, because if they went east, they would. have to do a two-story addition. -1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES August 4, 1986 1 OPPONENT 4 ban Martin, 607 S.E. 76th Portland, Oregon, Pertaining to unnecessary hardship, lie has not seen any figures to show cost of s building on the other side of the property. It would be a two-story unless they built on the ground level. Pointed out there is a i non-conforming structure on the other side of the property line and t believes that adding onto the nonconforming structure that now exists could be a problem in the future, because the last thing the area needs are numerous nonconforming structures along the property lines. Does not know if the rear property line is nonconforming, but in estimating that it is. When the structures Were originally built, 15' wan the conforming setback. Since they have been annexed by the City, they have become nonconforming. Norris Webb (Applicant) explained that the existing nonconforming structure is his house; there is no other nonconforming structure. Ho cannot put an addition on his house without providing for sewage without annexing to the City. He is amenable to do no, but as soon as he joins the City, he finds that his house is a nonconforming structure. All he is asking is to extend an already existing wall. 'rho house adjacent to his (on the rear property line) is not within 16' of the property line and they have shown no opposition to the proposed addition. His property is now subdividable due to his " joining the City, not at his request. When he joined the City, the zoning changed front tt-20 to R-15, Mr. Cinch Wanted to know the east/west dimonsiono of the property. It is 235' . It is 175'-200" from the east side of the house to the property line. The property line is long and narrow. it was then closed for board deliberation. Mr. Cinch believed that it would be difficult to put the addition on the east side because it would not relate properly to the rest of the house. Since the house was originally built as a conforming house and the addition would have been conforming at that time, he sees no problem. Mr. Martindale does not see how the addition could be injurious to the neighborhood when they are just extending the length of the wall. The addition will increase the value of the home and those around it. Mr. ;;slick concurred with that. Mr. xinsli agreed with the foregoing' and believes it is a reasonable request. The only elevaation)gisa bitamonotonousilooking.believes e(See Ex the bita9). (wast Mr. Cinch moved for approval of 'VAR 26-86-07/VAR 27-86-07 complete with the staff, recommendations. Mr. Zinsli seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. VAR 05-86-02/VAR 30-06-17/VAR 31-86-07/VAR 32-86-07/VAR 33-06-07/VAR -3 -86u VAR 3u-06-07. 4A continuation of a request by Robert and Liz Yates. The requests involve variances from nonconforming structure, yard setbacks, lot coverage, lake setback and special street setback -.2.• t I bEVEBOPMENT _REVIEW BOARD MINUTES August 4, 1986 requirements and reduction of yard areas below minimum requirements for the site' located dt 133`l lake Front lid. Approval of t gese variances would allow the ex ansion of an existing 'nonconforming ryes rent a structure TB sou o TM 2 t UCA Mr. Finch moved that this application be continued to August 18, 1986. Mr. zinali seconder) the motion and it Was Carried unanimously. DR 15-86.05/VAR 16-96-US. Reconnideration of a request by, NDN Arc ee s ac as agents Lot the Southland corp. for approval to removal the exterior of- a 7-.More/Dental office and to revise the parking area for the bu1tding located at 5t15 "Al Ave. '(Tt. 72U0 of TM 2 1s 3DC) . Althou h landscapingand arkin will be increased a var ance s necessary o t e % repo re an scap ng anc to t e required parking. The Hoard will reopen;the hearing )under the authority of k,OC 749..616 (3) (k, ,1) ) to take additiona testimony and evidence regarding Cho applicant's plans to cut the °oxfsting flowering' cherry' tree on the , usitt An abbreviated Staff report Was given by Mr. Galante. Southland Corp. in response to citizens' concerns, has agreed to save the flowering cherry tree. Be gave A brief synopsis of a letter from Southland Corp. (Exhibit 59) that they will save that tree, but they are planning to cut the two other trees et 5th and "A' . They recommend that an arborist registered with the American Society of Consulting Arborlate be retained to Make recommendations and possible supervise action taken on the tree. They would also do some pruning and fertilizing of said tree. Numerous letters were submitted by citizens (see Exhibits 9-21). Staff supports the Applicant'o revised proposal. They have not had time to revise the bite plan for Board approval tonight, but Applicant will explain the changes. Applicant explained that the original removal of the tree wan to meet Lake Uswego's standards for parking And for landscape an well an junt a better flow of traffic Within the Site. After review of comments try members of the community, they have chosen to delete that portion of the application. There is still one area of concern they would like to have addressed and that is the barbed planting area which is at the corner of 5th and "A' . The concrete planter is high enough that cars Constantly bump into it. They want to remove that bermed area and put a low planting area in there so that cars can back over the low area and still get out. Mr. Unlink commented that since Applicant did not have new site Plans, would it be possible to have a motion to have it brought beck. Mr. Galante said that the Board could make a motion to have it come back for approval with the plans are finished. Mr. punch wanted to know if Staff could handle Approval without another hearing. Staff felt it should, come back before the Board because of the variance for backup distance (which will be revised), the variance for number of parking spaces and how the landUcapo plan works -3. Mi I DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MTNOTES August 4, 1986 relative to the now planter, However, it should not require too much time. Applicant does not have any problem With this request. OPPONENTS Tom Shotzbar ,car 300 t'irst st. 016, Lake Cs�we of is a part time instructor at Clackamas Community College an an employee of General Tree Service. Commented that there Are specimen trees recognized throughout the Portland Metropolitan Area. This is one of the largest Akebono Cherry Trees in the area and it is used in all of the community college classes as a specimen tree. He applauded Southland Corp. for their decision. He suggested that a consulting aborist may be able to come up with an option no that the other existing trees (on the corner of 5th and 'A' ) do not have to be destroyed. Linda Simpson, 727 S.W. 6th St., Lake Oswego', commended the Board for reopening the question of the tree. Peter pear, felt that one less parking space and keeping the tree was the issue. He had written a previous letter about saving the tree. Richard Durham, 4863 Sage Hen Way, Lake Oswego. President of Bryant Woods Home Owners, represented 12U homes in Bryant Woods and was delighted to hear the applicant will save the cherry tree. Hopes the ORB will be as attentive to such issues in the future, William Powers, is glad the tree is going to be saved, He believes that since the Board is working to enhance the downtown area of Lake Oswego, that the saving of the tree is in the right direction. Kathleen Burstol, 17702 Overlook ct., Lake Oswego, thanked the Board for reopening the testimony. Would like the Hoard to also consider saving the two other trees (magnolia and weeping cherry) at the corner of 5th and 'Al . Perhaps they could be moved and transplanted to public property elsewhere. Ann Wolverton, 17706 Tree Top Way, Lake Oswego, President League of Women Voters of West. Clackamas County thanked the DRD for reopening the testimony and is happy with Southland Corp. for allowing the tree to remain. She asked the Board to consider some short-term parking on 5th St. adJecent to the 7-11 store to alleviate some of the parking problems in that area, o h preservingoonevtree, Shelrequestsethattthe at1W besawaredofathatsin`s future decisions. n There was no rebuttal from the Applicant. It was closed for Board deliberation. Mr. Pinch wanted to know if any consideration had been given to cutting down the retaining wall that encloses the other two trees. Applicant replied that could be one of the options. Mr. -4- 1BVELOPMENT REVTt;W BOARD MINUTES AUcUat 4, 1986 4 Eslick pointed out that the landscaping and parking plan had to come back before the Board and that the Applicant should work with a t landscape architect to come up with a Viable plan to savt; as much of the existing area an possible. It was the Board's consensus that the Akebono Cherry Tree is to be navud and the Applicant should work with the Staff in meeting the two variances) one for the site planning and one for the parking area. This will be extended for a future date. DR 04-86-02/VAIR 05-B604. A request by American rube Co.fGreonhill Assoc. for approval to construct an Oil Can Henry's Auto Service 'Center located at 7t)0 N. State Street Orb's 1600 and 1700 PM 2 11S 3UA) . A veriance'to ho vision clearance requirements (110e. 4tf.b30) is also requested 'to allow access to State St. Oil Can Henry's is proposing a two-bay station on a one-half acre site with access from State Street. They are proposing a shed roof structure that is going to be wood sided) a barn red in color with White trim. The access from State Street requires a variance to the vision clearance requirements in the building code and at this time the applicant has not proposed measures which would mitigate problems of access to the site, or at least minimize the variance request that they would make, Applicant has submitted a written narrative and the staff report addresses the standards that are applicable to this project. There are a couple areas of concern. The first is the building design. They have proposed building elevations that the staff believes did not meet the building design standard. Rationale for that is explained in the Staff report. One of the concerns of the staff is the facade facing drivers an they enter Lake Oswego from the north coming down State St. from the bunthorpe area. The building is angled in a way that driver() would see the side elevation that's shown on (Exhibit A). The Staff felt that wall is not broken up enough to allow the building design standards to be met and that the scale and proportion of it did not look well on the site with regard to providing a co)nplomontnrY relationship between the natural and mnanbutt environment and the building itself. In discussion() with the applicant, they disousoed ways in which the building could be modified to better meet building design standards and they emphasized I that at this time, the applicant is not proposing any of the solutions that the Staff had discussed. Staff and Applicant could not reach a consensus on any changes. Staff looked at (Exhibit 13) which shows an extension that in actually a screened wall, Exhibit 12 shows a similar type of extension in that it is also a screened wall extension of the face that is presented to State St. to Cars passing northward. With the bay doors open, the volume of the building is such that a complementary relationship between the windows and doors and the opening volumes created was not a complementary one and the building could be softened by the extension ' of that additional wing walla -5- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES August 4, 1906 In' respect to landscaping, the Applicant has proposed to leave about 30% or the site in landscaping and essentially they will not be iv grading or filling in the area of the steep elope at the second tat lot to the rear of the property that is new well vegetated. The Applicant has submitted a revised landscape design, (Exhibit 15) (passed to the Board). It extends the planting areas into approximately 15" between the property line and the curb line of State St. and to leave room for a 10' wide walkway along state St. They also plan to put in street trees. Different from the reduced plan that is in the Board's packet► is a larger landscape island that separates the two driveways and provides a little more definition and a slightly reduced driveway width. They have illustrated somewhat of a berm at the northeast side of the building and also on the north side of the driVoway which, with. additional plant materials, will further help brc+lk up the building facade. They have, with the landscaping proi•Jsed, some measurements that the Staff recommends. Also redlinod on the drawing is an "escape" drive or small area for cars to be able to circulate back onto the property, if need be, without going back out into the public street. It is a little awkward, but not normally anticipated. by the construction of the 10' wide walkway along the street and by the provision of the utilities and lights that are illustrated in the application, the Applicant complies with the transit and site circulation bikeways, and walkway standards. They also comply with the utilitienr street lights and drainage standards of the City. The other issue of concern in the access and vision clearance variance. The Staff report illustrates primarily that the Staff had expected the Applicant to take some measure to minimize the varianoo request. The Staff believes the access problems on State St. are significant enough that they could not give it a stamp of approval. Torwilligor comes from the went with a travel speed of 45 mph. However, very few cars travel that speed coming around that curve. There are two problems, (1) with cars exiting the driveway onto state St. and (2) making a left and orosoing traffic and traveling northward on State St. Tl'ero is only about 170' of sight distance which is well below the ,' required. There are various solutions to providing sight clearance which will be addressed, by the Applicant later in the testimony. There is a letter in the packet from Tem Lancaster to possible solutions for the eight clearance (Exhibit 5) . The letter does not address the State requirement that a car signal for 100' before making a lane change and a turning movement. In this particular instance, anyone traveling. southbound on State St. would need 100► to make the lane change and another 100" to make the move into the station. There in not enough distance for thin requirement. Mr. Martindale stated that the Mobil Station must have the same problem and thought this might be an improvement. Mr. Galante concurred, but stated that the problem still exists and the Engineering Department will not, recommend the site an safe until some measurements are made to improve the situation. -5 DSVSG0PMt;NT RGVTC;W HOARb_MINUTSS August 4 1986 004 There are four parking spaces Which meet the require►nents of two for each bay. Customers will not be leaving theii vehicles, so the spaces are merely parking for employees. The Applicant has submitted a sign design that appears to be about 20' in height and 38 eg, ft. ie Lrea. The City maximum for a ground sign is 10' in height and 32 sq. ft. in area, but believes the Applicant indicated the sign could be modified to meet standards and Wnttld not require a Variance. Mr. islick questioned if the recommendation was for denim: by the Staff. Mr. Galante stated that the recommendation Was for denial bailed on information in the application now, but Applicants might submit information tonight that may indicate they are moving towards solving come of these problems Applicant, Hal Hewett, Greenhill Associates, represented American CenteraonothepaUk Proposes property..ldApplicantapointed's opAuto thatorvice this started out to be a 30-GO day project and is now in its eighth month. He questioned the staff's denial since thin is not a new area, but a developed site with a high traffic business due to the } Mobil Station. Wants to discuss the two basic issues relating to (i) the building design and looation, and (2) traffic access. Applicant handed out a copy of a memorandum written by Mr. Galante on April 28th relating to building design standards (specific terms), The Staff suggested they modify the building to include a screened wall along the front portion of the building and a similar extension along the blank wall to the north. The owner reviewed the screened wail and did not feel comfortable with it on this or any other of their buildings. The northerly wall is an end wall fer their building. They believe they have oriented the building to have the least impact on passing traffic, however, they are willing to modify that blank wall to include a window which would tend to break it up. The second point he referred to wan the matter of the traffic generated. This is already a high traffic generating site, and has a virtually accident free record with the City. They will make a vast improvement because OCtt generates very few cars; probably SO-80 cars per day. They are quite willing, where they can get permission (on the vision clearance) from the affected owner, to effect clearance of ohurbst trees, etc. that the City might require. They are willing to work within reasonable limits with the County and/or State regarding speed reductions. They feel that it is beyond their scope but are willing to try. Mr. Hewett clarified for Mr. Pinch that the Mobil Station will do substantially more business (traffic-wise) than will UCH. Mr. Selick pointed out to Mr. Hewett that their business wan not involved with any traffic control that may or may not be done in that area. Mr. Hewett reiterated that in the Staff report, it is recommended that they modify the traffic flow in some way to make it safer. Mr. Galante remarked that the reason the State/City wan not including that intersection in traffic control work coming up in the future, Was due to lack of money. Mr. Zinali questioned if the property wan • DEVELOPMENT REVIEW HOARD MINUTES August 4, 1986 01,1 owned by the Applicant or if they had an option to purchase and Mr. Hewett stated they have An option on the property. Jay Waldron, 14999_ Springwater Road, Oregon City, Attorney in sortland stated diet the usage at the gasoline station is approximately 300 vehicles par day, °CH would be about one-fifth of that. He believes that OCH has done an excellent fob in designing and landscaping the areal that they cannot change the intersection, but are willing to work with the County to make it safer, Believes ' it is a positive solution to a poor looking gasoline station, Mr. Hewett stated that they have come up against numerous problems and they would appreciate something conclusive at tonight's meeting. ;1 subject was closed for Uoard deliberation, Exhibit 19 (Revised Elevations) shown one that wan drawn by Mr. Galante and one by the Applicant's arohiteot, They show modifications to the building suggested by Staff. The Board can either approve the designs as submitted or ask that redesign occur, Mr. Gulick wanted to further discuss the Site variance in regards t0. the saEoty of entering and exiting the site with the existing traffic flow. Mr. Galante pointed out that according to the City Traffic Engineer, 45 mph is the posted distance in that area And at those opeeds it would take approximately 225-275V of vision to safely enter and exit the site, Ho pointed out that (1) most cars are not traveling that fast when they enter that turn, and (2) there have not been a lot of accidents duo to this ►nanuver. It could be that moat people know it in a difficult intersection and take necessary precautions. The minimum vision Clearance might be accepted here. Mr, Cinch Wanted to know Who had the authority to approve a stop sign on that opot and Mr. Galante (Answered that he believed it wan on county land. Mr. Finch beliovun that moot people atop or are virtually stopped when they enter that intersection and that a atop sign would not particularly change what is already happening, Also, nines the intensity of traffic in going to be reduced) it would be difficult to stop someone using the property due to factors not within their control, 40 does not care for the looks of the building, but believes they should be allowed to utilize the Property. lie feels that if they wait until the traffic problem is alleviated, it may be a long time. Where are terrible site linen all over town and does not feel that alone is worth rejecting the application at thin time. It iu a problem that in not 'Just the developers. Mr. 2inali agreed with Mr. Finch and believes it in more a City problem than an individual developer'o problem. Mr. Galante explained that the City has boon working on the probien but there is not enough money at this time. When property in being upgraded (an it would be in this case) the City wants to make necessary upgrading changes, if they approve thin property now, the City will have lost an opportunity which has been built into the system to change a design to meet code. M . Martindale stated that he did net feel the l DBVIILoPmENT R:VI1W BOARD M/Nu'J S August 4, 1986 00114 owner should be denied developing his property by circumstances beyond his control, Since nothing has been done so far about the traffic problem, it must not be a serioue problem: in fact, the now uaacre is going to decrease the traffic hazard. At this point he does Pi not foe). it is fair to deny the petition because of gonditiona beyond his contras., especially when his operation will aotually be improving the traffic. Mr. Melick diaaereed that it was completelyout of the owner's control and felt they could pursue this further. Be did agree with Mr. Finch and Mr, 14insli in their analysis of the situation. Mr:. 8slick has some trouble with the elevations. Ha believes the building is Out of character and is a little too "eatesey". The windows don't have a function, just for decoration. Be fools the berm on the east aide of the building needs something to scale it down. Applicant stated there is a mezzanine in the building. The windowo on the high side of the building facing the street are for natural light within the work hays and the second floor mezzanine is a storage area which in above: the office portion. It does have a basement from which the men work on the cars. The board discussed turning the building 1DO degrraes. TheY believe it would be more pleasant to have the 15' height elevation towards the street but did not know if that would change the function of the bays. Sven though there was a question about the high windows, it wan noted by Mr. Pinch that they do allow light to enter down into the building and bays. The Board Wanted to know if they could approve the variance with a condition. Mr. Galante responded that it could be approved with such a condition. The condition should minimize the variance request. It should show to the satisfaction of the City i nginoer that the vision clearance issue will be minimized by the provision of (a) reduction of speeds, (b) atop sign, or (c) realignment of the intersection. They have already stated they want OCR to have a registered professional traffic engineer approach the State Car County) to solve thin traffic problem, Mr. zinsli pointed out that it should be a Joint effort between the Applicant and the County and it should be reasonable. Applicant stated that they would be . +lreehble to work with the designated Hoard regarding a atop sign or traffic speed limit. At this point, Mr. Finch made a motion that Dtt 04-06-02 together with VAR 16-56-OS be approved with the following conditions: (1) that the developer demonstrate cooperation with the City Engineer's Office and State Highway department in Alleviating the vision clearance problem to the north of the site by whatever moans necessary which Could include a stop sign, reduced noted limit, or other moans: t2) the north building elevation be revised to include fenontration compatible with the remainder of the building facer and (3) the building be turned 180 degrees or the low side of the building be toward the front. It was questioned whether or not the building could function properly if it wan turned 100 degrees. The architect thought it might be a hardship And could not give a definite answer without further time. The motion was denied due to 1r1 UCV1; ,Oi'MEN'X REVIEW ROAR))D MfNIJ'J E$ Angust,4, 1906:' lack of aocand Mr. Martindale questioned the staff as to whether there were any additional r000mmendaticns thoY wouleiMake. Mr, Galante annwerecl teat any approval should be conditioned upon .final favorable notion by council on the plan amendrnont and on change. A so that the color of the fiberglass roof ehingloo hers not been tipeo1fied. This could be important if the building i.0 rotated 1O0 degrees, The aignnge be revised to comply with code requirements because no variance has been requested. Peels there should be plan-to-plan consistency with a finalized design based on directions given by the Board on those issues and the Applicand should come back on August 10th. Although Applicant stated they did not want a continuance, the Geatd felt it was in the boot interest for the Applicant to clarify seme of the issues mentioned earlier and to continue on the August 18th meeting. Mr. zinsli moved for continuance to the next Board hearing on August 1klth and Mr. Martindale seconded the motion. It was else suggrsated by Mr. Martindale that the Applicant should address Como of the ieeeueea that were discussed by the board at this meeting, itoll call vote showed Mr. zinsii, Mr. Martindale, and Mr, Meltck Voted "yes° and Mr, Pinch voted "no". 3 PD 0146-uts VAR 29.06-07/VAR 37-06-07 VAk 38-86-07. A ro uont b o am a n property_ owner & O'1 l 'no, anen n or owner or a royal at a 22+»iot .leaned rla veto pmnnt and u jlroval or a"variance to a a roc ran ape rbrtu roman or o rei a variance to Efe ctrcuiation-Private 3troota Standard requiring a maximum crbaa-mope of ►a11, on any drfvoabie area; .and, ;a variance to the; _ SO, radius ro uiromon6 for a col.-an-sac. irhe cite in 1ocatod t of e croon Par wa N. o Port and Communit College, and W. of Corvan ea Rea is hok 5ti,. Mt.; Par 1. Multnomah, County Tax Map X224) The Stott report wadi given by Lori Mastrantenlo who read a letter received from the Mountain Park flame Owners' Association (Exhibit 13). 'they agreed with the overall concept of the plan and would like to have ai.nglo-family ciwollinga built, however, the Mountain park DeclAr4tion of Restrictions: an it applies to to slagle..faMily caweliin requires the followings "rontage at the bulldin0 s3otback line of hot. leas than 60 , lot area minimum of 0,000 t3ql, ft., minimum front yard setback of 20', minimum side street setback of 15', and side and rear yard setback of 7' . Staff in recommending approval of thin project with 10 of the 22 proposed lots having no setbacks along et leant one property line and A 5' side yard setback on the other side. Thus, mran lots could have only5' between structures. It in the Mountain Park Homes Owners' Association opinion that this pnoloct proposes too many Iota of inauffictant size, They will withhold their approval of any plan that dean net meet their criteria. -ld.. „! ed , TA t kA11,' August A 19t36 r rfiiip i ,1 ray ave adopted all of the CC&VVs of g "a tw ich Staff did not know). This is not f, 0 c$ f ,.? 1 �fiiie original ggatopOD. It will be the Mountain Park PUD, p ,. .�iiication l'-f aaPain Park PUD changes the whole u : will be necessary for there to be c,Y,.i :. 'ait'S of Mountain Park. That would .,,, ; :,,/, two-thirds of the Mountain Park Home . tolt that this issue should be tabled ,. ,'era , et together to discuss the issues with the Mountain Park Hbme Owners' AP 1w : , oaf the board that this application be ^lcould be presented at a later date. ! w,,to nvprOVed and passed without any changes { twr changes: (1) on page 4, the word f, ), 11,1 ill en page 3 it should be changed to � # i-o in a good plan. The minutes were , , ,0 a si passed unanimously. I,,.. g9tONR AND ORDER .,+*”3 seconded by Mr. 2insli that DR r.,,: ��€ r.f be approved. Mr. Csliccl7 Mr. 4 s r. diver and Mr. Martindale abstained. . on3 no;onded by Mr. Martindale that sD , .f ,As, 2 ..86-Ofi(VAR 23-86-•06 (Roger Martin) Y Ja s o®a:ani"noualy. . , nincont Chairman Bolick adjourned the r i` tit a' was I t, /1/