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/