Loading...
Approved Minutes - 1990-12-17 PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES 1990 1�. 4\ CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES ; ' December .17, 1990 I, CALL TO ORI)1?,k The Development Review Board meeting of December 17, 199() was called to order by Vice—Chair Rerrty at 7:36 p.m. IL IQLL CALL Board members present included Mr. Sievert, Mr, Greaves,Ms. Remy and Mr. Starr, Mr, Poster, Mr. Stanaway and Mr. Bloomer were excused. Also present were Robert Galante, Acting Planning Director; I•Itmid Pishvaie,Development Review Planner; Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney; and Kathy Avery, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Greaves moved for approval of the ,gust 6, 95?Mijutcs. Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Sievert, Mr. Greaves, 'Ms, Remy and Mr. Starr voting yes. The Q„ctoher 1, f}99Q Miutttv'.s were not available for Development Review Board vote, IV. PETITIONS AND Co)MMUNICATI()NS Eli) None. V, PUBLIC III: ARIN( Vice—Chair Remy explained the qu►tsi.jui'lcial hearings procedure, �.',- I . „$=2 C .4),a request by Dennis E. Eastman, I?,taghicer for approval to upgrade the existing service station,which requires a Class 1I variance to the Access Standard and a Class I variance to the 25' setback requirement. The site is located at 78() N. State Street (Tax Lots 1601)& 1700 or Tax Mop 2 I E 3DA)„ Robert Galante recommended that DR 2-90/VAR $ -90(n b) be postponed and he explained that a new nonce would be provided for affected citizens when the application was ready to proceed. J,I. .t4 .(M,u LI0- 0),a request by Terry L. Goldbeck for approval to construct 0 one—story 6,000 scl, ft. of ce\retull structure with 30 parking spaces, The site iR located on the south side of Galewood Street in Mercantile Village(Tax Lots 20(10, 210() , 2200 ofTax Map 21E i8I111), Mr. Galante explained that the application went before the .Board on November 19, 1990 and was continued for clarification on three issues. lie listed the issues as 1) allowing the applicant to better demonstrate that,the trees on the property could 4 , 12/17/90 DR13 Minutes Page 1. of effectively be preserved; 2)the need to address the DEQ requirements for biofiltration; and 3) the character and design of the building. 0He stated that if the applicant satisfactorily addressed the issues of concern, the application could be approved with three conditions which were 1) that an irrigation plan be provided for the building site and parking area;2) that an arborist provide guidelines for the preservation and protection of trees to remain on site; and 3) that final drainage and utility plans be submitted for the review and approval of the City Engineer and the plans would include adequate easements for extending public utilities and a final erosion control and biofiltrution plan for storm water control. Mr, Starr pointed out that the application listed 30 parking spaces and the plan only provided 23 spaces; Mr. Galante explained that the applicant had responded to Board concern about providing more space for existing trees by modifying the site plan, Mr. Galante provided a letter to the Board from the Waluga.Neighborhood Association that was misplaced and not presented at the last hearing, He pointed out that the concerns brought lip in that letter were raised by Bruce Goldstrn, Chairman in his public testimony, A121/1itilt era,fxtl l ccili ' .t'.QLSiallordL t tLd, ittke„ . et o.97034 presented a brick and sample board for the record, Fie submitted and read to letter from his in borist,David Halstead, l,ie stated that there were 22 fir trees scheduled to be saved with four locateal, close to parking and walk areas that would require special care and protection, He pointed out that Mr. Halstead was present at the hearing if any Board members had any questions for him, lie stated that the curbing had been omitted from the drainageway on 0 the back portion of the lot, Vice-Chair Remy requ s te clarification on thenumbero f parking splices. Mr,. Goldbeck explained that there were 23 parking spaces in ownership on the site, He site furtherc,ontrt�llet �O/a ofttla 15 parking sn ces easement with an tadjacettt parking lot and his joint �' which provided the site with 71/2 more parking spaces, Mr.Greaves inquired about double-trunked Douglas-firs within the parking Jot, He asked what the realistic chances were for preserving those trees after on site grading and paving, flavidlialst t ►Arborist,P. G,Box U82,Tualitthi.M,62 explained that there was only one root system for each double-trunked tree and he stated that the soil was rocky and those trees were really anchored in. He stated that the excavation around the trees would be slight and shouldn't affect them. Mr. lnte correstforthat the there Site wasonly 14 parking spaces in the joint easement which }a providedpa 1�1.citli tfor J s Agtd st DrazedadssaalhainnatuAthigalivigh.b.o.rimiAsszhttim.42,60.Counta '4�,s►' .osis ;nutititalkc .atego.J' O S requested a continuance on the hearing to allow the neighborhood association time to review the new submittals. lie pointed out that the information came in at the last moment, He stated that if the Board chose to go ahead 0 12/17l90 DRt3 Minutes Page 2 of ii with the application, there should be conditions of approval which were that: 1)the trees were fenced off during construction; 2) the trees to be saved were really saved and not later cut down because they interfered with the parking structures; and 3) they provide additional landscaping instead of a fence along the property line, Vice—Chair Remy inquired when the plans were submitted, Mr. Galante responded that the biofltration plans were received one week ago, and the exterior samples and the I It arborist letter received that day, He mentioned that state law required that if new material was received, anyone could request that the hearing be eontinucd for a minimum of seven days to allow for adequate review of the materials. Mr. Greaves moved to continue DR.20 415thatLsl.►J04f)..to January 7,1991 to allow the Waluga Neighborhood Association adequate time to review the newly submitted materials. Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr,Sievert, Mr. Greaves, Ms. Remy and Mr,Starr voting yes, Mr.Galante inquired if there were any issues that the Board wanted addressed for the next hearing. Mr. Greaves expressed concern with the trees and said that he wasn't totally convinced with the evidence submitted, He disagreed with the roof coloring and materials and requested that it be more consistent with other structures in the project. ,. llips clarified that state law required that all new evidence most be available to the public 10 days prior to the hearing. She urged the applicant anMU neighborhood association to submit any possible new information 10 days prior to the next hearing date. , . DR 15 90L 1 -a Q, a request b,y Birteher Frank Properties for approval to ra. :ass%4 construct u 120,000 square foot,six story office building. The applicant is also requesting approval of a lot line adjustment between "Centerpointe" Lots and 6, rrhe site is located between Centerpointe Drive and ICt'use Oaks Boulevard and is on the site north of the One Centerpointe Building at Centerpoittte (Tax Lots 500 and 600 of Tax Map 2 1E 6). Vice—Chair Remy explained the quasi—judicial hearings procedure and requested a staff report, Mr. Galante stated that he anticipated that the applicants would submit revised plats at the hearing and that they would carefully walk through the plan with the Board, He discussed the 35 acre Centerpointe plat which required 1$ acres,or 43% of the;project to be set aside in landscaping and open space. lie stated that in this application the applicant needed to identify an additional acre for preservation of fir trees, He stated that the applicant had updated the tree survey to make it more accurate; shown a realignment of the Kruse Oaks Blvd. roadway since the original approval, and looked at parking lot modifications to substantially improve tree preservation on the property. He expressed concern with the adequacy of bioliltration for stormwater to minimize the amount of phosphate that entered the stormwater system, He stated that the applicant had met with staff and had conceptually agreed with a system that would temporarily be in place for Two Centerpointe, and modified when they proceeded developinganother parcel within the plat. 12/17/90 ORB Minutes Page 3 of 9 He suggested that.the Board approve the application with the conditions listed in the staff report. Vice—Chair Remy inquired if the City foresaw any problem regarding the weak 1 •► foundation soils, Mr,Galante explained that the site was not noted in the Comprehensive Plan as having weak foundation soil but the soils report indicated that the soil was relatively weak which would require the structure to be placed on pile caps, Vice—Chair Remy inquired if any Board menders had any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest and there was none, Ap.ulktutt ch Stirs$ircbitect, j 1)J L .?, i , Y. a; ngton,Portln td.9. .Q5 3510 stated that he'd been involved with the project since its eonception in 1984, He discussed the layout of the project and the areas of significant open space,trees and a Swale. He discussed specific issues listed in the staff report regarding building design, landscaping,drainage, utilities and site circulation, lie explained that the traffic was below the Original impact projections for the project, Mr. Greavestasked why the traffic was generating at a lower capacity than anticipated and Mr,Spies responded that the parking counts were below their original estimates. Mr. Spies further explained that one business was phasing employee shifts which lowered the peak pan. traffic volumes, Mr,Greaves inquired about the hiofiltraition system and Mr, Spies explained that the swale would be located in the northern part or the site. Vice—Chair lae;my inquired if the elevation of the northernmost lot was higher than the .10 Two Centerpointe lot and Mr,Spies responded that the lot was not higher, She the expressed og would rnwith ti higher than of Two Centerpointe and Mr,Spies pointed out that rooftop any other structetrc in the project and the root would be constructed like the of, r buildings in the project. Mr. Greaves requested clarification of the drainage plan since the site crested in the center. Mr. Spies explained that drainage from the southern portion of the site would be piped over to the biof iltration smile. , swego 97015,stated that he had worked on the biofiltration plan to get it to conform with City requirements, He explained that they had discussed their plans for the south portion of the she with City staff who agreed that the amount of ►nfortnataort given to them provided City staff with enough detail to hold them to and they were comfortable with allowing°I'm< to continue with the plans, lie discussed the biofiltration plans at the northern portion of the site and explained that they were proposing a 5 to 10 foot wide,200 foot long Swale« He mentioned that the. final details were being left up to City staff, Vice- Chair Repay inquired if there were any proponents or opponents for the application and there was none. 12/17/90 DRT3 Minutes Page 4 of t q 0. V. .. Neithr_r fur NoittSt lomAtwood, 1tx'155.White Oaks Drjve,Lake f Q,swef o 97035 requested that the 0 Board consider the effect of the landscaping since it was being designed more for visual ' .4,, impact. He was concerned with the effect the development would have on wildlife, r,-,•t 1 p RtUttai y' Dick Spies mentioned that the retention of the three acre portion on the,north side of the , °`project would have a very positive effect on wildlife. tie explained that it was their ,°,11, �,h experience that the most successful way to deal with wildlife was to save large areas of ', trees, , Mr. Galante'reiterated that the parcel in question was part of a master plan that was ',' ,4 approved by the Planning Commission and the issue of wildlife was addressed. ,'r'„ Mr. Greaves noted that tho applicants had stated that they wou►d work with staff ,, •' regarding the lighting and he inquired if staff wits comfortable with that, Mr. Galante ;�•} responded that it was acceptable since the applicants had proposed lighting fixtures ,\ which were very close to matching what would be appropriate for the site, Vice—Chair Remy inquired if the detail provided for the biofiltration plans was acceptable to staff and Mr. Galante responded that it was acceptable and he noted that the drainage swale would be easy to implement on the site. Seeing no further testimony, Vice-Chair Remy closed the hearing for Board deliberation, Jane Ali 4' r,. <r Vice-Chair Remy noted that although she would have liked to have been presented with ,.' more detail for the record, fire project appeared to be very well thought out, Mr , ; Greaves stated that he was very comfortable with ti,e project;and he was pleased with. , the configuration of the landscaping plan. �0, • ,,t? Mr, Sievert moved for approved of DR.il5-90/SD 43-9Q bated uFindings, t p pots the -� . , Reasons and Conclusions of the staff report and accordingto the deliberations of . .."�,li: the Board and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Greaves a "ae seconded the motion and it.carried with Mr,Sievert,Mr, Greave,t, Ms. Remy and Mr. r .� 0 Starr voting yes, �. DR 22-90, a request by Birtcher Frank Properties for approval to construct a *r ',. 6,000 sq. ft.day care facility. The site is located at Oswego Towne Square(Taxi % Lots 200 and 101 of Tax Map 2 It SAA and Block 10 Mtn, Park of Mult. County . Tax Map#422G) ,. . Mr. Greaves moved for the continuance of 1N122r J to a date certain on �t;'`' ' Thursday, December 20, 1990 and to hold that particular session open due;to ^• ,,' miscommunication so that it will also be heard on January 7, 1991. for any new ,« testimony from people that missed it and did not testify at the December 20,1990 ttU4,4 ; hearing. Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it carried with Mr.Sievert, Mr, Greaves,, `;�;t!r�; .' Ms. Remy and Mrs, Starr voting yesq aeq. ,,. , 12/17/90 DRB Minutes ,",® Page 5 of 9 ' 'v,,; gl 6 PI 8M "I)kt. 0 VAR 30-90(a--c),a request by Sharon& Lee Parr for a variance in order to construct a 7' bay addition to the kitchen and bedroom, replace dents and add intermediate decking and repair the existing boathouse. These improvements, require a 25' variance to LOC 48.535(3) and 48.215(1)which list a setback requirement of 25'. A variance is also required to LOC 48.700(3) which would restrict the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The site is located at 1607 Lake Front Road (Tax Lot 1700 of Tax Map 2 1E 10CA). Vice,-Chair Remy inquired if any Board members had any conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts and there was none. Humid Pishvaie submitted two additional exhibits for the record, one from J. Andrews in favor of the application and the other from D,James Manning who was against the 1 application, Mr, Pishvtale explained that the nature of the application had changed, lie explained that the applicant had originally requested three variances and after several meetings with staff, they decided to withdraw their request for the intermediate deck so there would be no variance necessary to the lot coverage standard. In addition, he explained that variances(a) and(b) would be modified to 15 foot variances rather than the 25 foot variances as originally requested, He explained that the applicants were now proposing to expand the kitchen by adding a 7 foot bay window which would occur within the existing footprint of the building, He referred to the condition regarding the determination of the sewer line and he it was no longer necessary since the i explained that ntermediate deck request had been withdrawn, He explained that staff found that the variances were the minimum necessary to allow the proposed expansions. He changed his recommendation from continuance to approval without conditions, MPPli aid ;Lsc t1T. 1Gf)7 Y.,a to .riot sad,Lake UQWeg.0 gave a brief history of the home. He explained that they had received approval from the Lake Oswego Corporation and he submitted a letter from them. He discussed the bay addition, the t'vo decks they were planning on rebuilding and the repairs,to the boathouse, He stated that the kitchen was deficient in size and he explained that even with the addition to the kitchen, the eating area would still be smaller than the average home on the lake in his area, He explained that the bay extension would allow for an expansion of the bedroom below the kitchen which was also deficient in size. He submitted letters from tour neighbors in favor of the project. Ilc stated that the neighbors to the east, the Mannings,were the only neighbors who would be affected byythe construction, fie explained how the Mornings were in opposition to the project since they felt the bay addition would affect the view from their own bay window. Mr. Parr pointed out that he had discovered that the Manning'sbay window addition was built without a permit, tie submitted a copy of the application indicating that the Manning's addition was an illegal structure, 9 12/17/90 DRD Minutes Page 6 of 9 1 He presented pictures of the lake which were taken inside the Mannin home and pointed out that there would only be a slight redaction of their view with the proposed hay addition. He explained how the Manning's view would be affected more if they 0 were to put up a privacy screen on the east end of their deck,like they had on the west end of their deck, Vice—Chair Remy referred to the letter from the Lake Corporation which requested that the applicants remove their concrete patio area and install lawn and,she asked if they would be willing to meet that condition. Mr. Pan responded that it would be acceptable. Mr. Grcavcs inquired why the applicants were proposing to increase the width of the upper deck and Mr. Parr responded that it was too narrow so they proposed increasing it one foot in width which would still be within the footprint of the lower deck. Mr.Greaves asked what kind of work the applicants were proposing to do to the boathouse and Mr. Parr responded that it was twenty-five years old and needed to be updated to code. Proponent his .al►)nery, 15O.41t1,1 e 1'ConLLaKc Qswegoilfi l stated that he lived four homes east of die Purrs. He explained that the Parr home was dated and the additions proposed would enhance the home substantially, lie also stated that he was very supportive of the application and felt the neighborhood would be positively affected, .ot tp.1J 4iLat)te Front Ri d, ,,.ttke- n;v.97_U. ,stated that he lived two house west of the Parrs. Fle concurred with Mr. Flannery's statements and added that ,, ;, the Parrs had already done high quality work to their home since they bought it and they were it good additiont to the neighborhood, Salsa a I ront..Roadtfinitv Oswvego_7Q mentioned that she lived three houses to the east of the Parrs and had a three story bay in her home. She concurred with the prior testimony. Sri 1 1 ,ale Front Rohsl e�. ' 970 4 stated that he lived two houses down from the applicant and he concurred with the prior testimony, aPs1 Loxilioninga551.14WontgolsialitDmogol2D14.stated that she was the neighbor immedII iately east of the site. She submitted a book with a letter and pictures regarding the proposed bay window addition for the record. She disagreed with a 1 statement in the staff report that referred to the homes in Exhibits 13 and 14 as "like properties" to the applicants, She mentioned that the applicants were requesting the variance to add the bay window due to hardship and she noted that they created that hardship when they did their 1988 kitchen remodel and moved their kitchen counter iII nto the eating area three feet. She referred to pictures which she had submitted and showed the impact the addition would have on her home, She pointed out that the roof for the proposed bay would extend two fe;t higher than the highest point on the applicant's roof. She stated she had a receipt for the building permit for her bay addition and would be happy to provide it to the Board. She summarized by stating that the applicant had not met the burden of hardship and the data provided was very biased, She requested that the 13oatrd protect the livability and the existing views the residents 410 on the water front maintain, 12I177/90 DDltl3 Minutes Page 7 or 9 Itclrtlfttat LeePart suggested that the issue the Mannings objected to was not the blockage of their view but rather a conflict they had been having with the Mannings since they bought their home on the lake. He clarified that they did remodel their kitchen but moved the kitchen counter less than a foot,not three feet, He disagreed with the pictures she submitted that projected how her view of the lake would be affected. , Mr, Greaves requested staff's interpretation of"like properties", Mr. Galante explained that staff complied with a directive from the Lind Use Board of Appeals after a recent court case and considered"like properties" to be homes in the same zone or vicinityf He further explained that "like" simply meant to be the same use, not necessarily the same value, same lot size or same home size, Seeing no further tesUniony, Vice—Chair Retry closed the hearing for.Board deliberation, Osttilmati013, Vice—Chair Remy noted that the applicant prepared an extensive report and she expressed her appreciation. She questioned whether the request was the minimum variance necessary to make use of the property. Mr, Sievert stated that the eating area and bedroom appeared to be inadequate and felt that the request was reasonable. He noted that the applicant had received approval from most of their neighbors and front the Lake Corporation. Vlr, Greraves pointed out that applicants were staying within the deck footprints, lIe noted than although he was notthe in favor of variances aalong the lake, ra precedence had 410 been osteater pdeo ap le sulagagde estnejdo ytletdat. iCtl;tt tcayo►baen ue.nnfdacicr tMo deity e tnine;agp pliatca4nttsr ct hpeg t cbuutet rrriogt4h tt.l that the applicants had met the burden of proof and that he would have to agree witiX the applicants that their request was reasonable. He recommended that the Lake Corporation's request regarding the removal of the concrete,pad be conditioned. Mr, Starr moved for approval of.Y,M 3 t(t—ti) with the provision of the Lake Corporation requet to remove tine concrete platform in accordance with the deliberations of this Board and the deletion of the condition in the staff report. Mr. Sievert seconded the motion and it carried with Mr, Sievert, Mr, Greaves,Ms. Remy and Mr Stair voting yes, VI, GENERAL PLANNING, 1 7 rdiscussedthe Park developmentit Mr, 1 isiavaie. Riverview planned which had been approved by the Board. lie reminded the Board that the applicant for�the project was M—B Development and Chet since the epproval, the;applicant would like to modify the configuration of the lots, iie showed a composite plan to the Board. He explained that some minor adjustments were permissible without having a public hearing and told the Board that if they had a problem with the reconfiguration, the request should go before the 13 mi for a hearing, "t'he Board agreed that the change would be minor and no public hearing was necessary, 12/17/9011213 Minutes Page S of it VII. OTHER BUSINESS-Finding Conclusions and Order Mr. Greaves noted that the Findings, Conclusions and Order for Sp 33-9()-833 should be amended to read"denied without prejudice' 0 Ms. Remy moved for approval of SD,33--90433ainding.s,,Coneltislonuntifirsitc as amended. Mr.Greaves seconded the motion and it carried with Mr,Sievert,Mr, Greaves, Ms,Remy and Mr. Starr voting yes. Mr. Greaves moved for approval off1 17-90/V, R 27-90-83Q.I+'iiidltlgs, eonvlusinns.amt t tla. Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it curried with Mr. Starr,Mr. Greaves,Ms.Remy and Mr. Starr voting yes. There was not a quorum present to vote on SD 12--88\VAR 19-88 I D 5 8(Mod. 1O 90) Ctndyatm..C.t21IMIsi.NISAISLOISkt so they were postponed until the next hearing. VIII'. ADJOU RNMCN' ' i 'rhea; being no further business to come before the Development Review Board, Vice- Chair Remy adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted,' S 4N\ c) �4-\& \ Kathy Avery '"A Senior Secretary • knit 2/14/91 410 1 12/17/90 pia Minutes Page 9 of 9 f di CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES , ' MONDAY,WWCEMII1 3, 1990 I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of December 3, 199i)was called to order by Chairman Foster at 7:30 p.m. IL ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr. I3loomer,Mr. Starr,Mr. Poster and Mr,Stanawny. Ms. Remy, Mr. Creaves anti Mr, Sievert were excused. Also present wore Robert Galante, Acting Planning Director; Michael Wheeler,Associate Planner; Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney',and Barbara Anderson,Secretary. 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. GENERAL PLANNING VI PUBLIC HEARING I1 , a request.by 13irtcher Frank Properties for approval to construct a alp 120,O00 square fret, six story office building, The applicant is also requesting approval Center points.Driveb and Kruse Oaks Boulevard`and is on the site north of the One of a lot line adjustment ment between Cettterpointe Lots 5 and 6 The site as located between Centerpointe Building at Centerpoir to (Tax Lots $00 and 600 of Tax Map 2 1 16). Staff coordinator is ,oimrt nw ' '1.tngJlttlnjat . s Chairman Poster noted that there was a request by the nppliennt to continue this agenda item to December 17, 1990. Mr. Starr moved for continuance of 1:11UK,» 9L$,1 to Uecentlber 17, 1990. Mr. Stratatway seconded and the motion passed with Mr. Stanaway,Mr. Poster, Mr.Starr and Mr,Rloonrer all voting yes, W.W.--..I..*'WO A.....,..IM.17....V*OW .....»,M.,:,,...r«..:.*..1.,r.:.0,.tl.+.Yr.....M.P...1....V.I...4....M•.**1.M.w..+ w1 P1 ,,2 `K .os.a )„a request by Terry L.Goldbeck for approval to construct tt ones story 6,000 sq. ft. office\retail structure wit r.30 parking spaces. The site is located on thn south side of Galewood Street in Mercantile Village crux Lots 2000,2100&2200 of Ttu Map 1n EBB). Staff coordinator is Rolter(Gtlincliefals.1111gI10110l114DIreCtor. Chairman Poster stated that there was also a request by the applicant to continue this agenda item to December 17, 1990 Dikil Minutes 12/3/90 Page 1 of Mr. Bloomer moved for continuance of DR 20 01.0&11 r!0) to December 17, 1990, Mr.Starr seconded and the motion passed with Mr, Stanaway,Mr,Foster, Mr, Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. "'. , ; ' — -M..--ate- �,�.:....- ,.. r—.,...-_—r----,...+--,-,....----.-�•.......,.---- -------- " t ,a request by Richard P,Waterman for an extension on the approval of a 3-lot major partition,lot line adjustment and a variance to the Park and Open Space Standard, The approvalinclurM::s a future streets plan. The site i4. s located west of Highway 43 between Glenanorrie Lane and Cherry Lane (Tax Lot 7000; 2300 respectively of Tax Map 2 lE 1000; 141313), Michael Wheeler discussed the applicant's proposal, He provided some background on the proposal, previous approvals and appeals, Mr.Wheeler explained that staffs first approval of an extension was based upon the date of the first City Council action. This first time extension should have been based on the final Council action, Therefore,the applicant's current extension should have continued through April, 1991. Staff is requesting the Board to consider the application and grant an extension to the corrected date of April 19, 1992, Applicant IlicintrALS.Vattrolan, 1441E..Wood lactlu wet acl4c1I ttutut1 . 9$05 discussed the history of the project, He stated that he was in agreement withthe modifications made to the conditions of approval. Mr. Waterman requested approval from the Board, iteyl ,,t B25 S. ChtiI O,Yav,L.411ce.t)swego stated that he was not opposed to the request for an extension. 1-1e wits concerned abont the fact that he received no notice of the meeting, Mr. Sokol was concerned about the street vacation and the size of the lots, Chairman Foster explained where the proposed street was to be placed, He stated that the street would not be continued through to Morning Sky Street. Rebuttal Eic d 'Waterman stated that he prepared the list of people to be notified within 3(X) feet, He explained that Mr, Sokol's property was outside of the 300' requirement. l•lowe*ver, he was aware that Mr, Sokol had been in contact with the Planning staff within the last week, Mr. Waterman stated that he had even called Mr, Sokol's office to confirm the hearing today, He explained that the future street was to be stubbed ol'f with a barrier, The street vacation includes .lighway 43 vacation of right-of--way, Mr. Wheeler noted a change for Condition 13 to read as follows: The original Condition No.3 shall be amended (rather than deleted and replaced) by the following: Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) for the lot line adjustment to be specified or legal instruments for title transfer, for recording with the Clackamas Count Clerk's Office, shall be provided to City staff for review. it F: DR13 Minutes 12/3{ O Page 2 of 3 Actual recording shall not be a condition of approval of this decision. However,when recorded, the instruments for each parcel shall reference this land use application—City 0 of Lake Oswego Land Development Services Division, File No, SI) 12-.88/VA.R 19^. 88/PD 5-88(Mod. 10--90). Dsl t okt The Board agreed that the applicant had submitted sufficient evidence, By modifying conditions of approval the proposal would comply with current City Codes and Standards, Mr.Stanaway moved for approval of$D 1243/VAR 1948/P D 548(Mod. "10--90), Mr. Starr seconded and the motion passed with Mr. Stanaway,Mr. Foster,Mr, Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. VII, OTHER BUSINESS Findings,Conclusions and Order Mr.Starr moved for approval of DR),9-9O/VAR 2 90-83$Findings,Conclusions and Order. Mr. Bloomer seconded and the motion passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr. Foster, Mr. Starr and Mr, Bloomer all voting yes. Mr. Stanavvay moved for approval of,RJ21 . #3.1` Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr. Starr seconded and the motion passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr, Foster,Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before: the Development Review Board,the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 73/ Barbara Anderson Secretary D1.13 Minutes 12/3/90 Page 3 of 3 I 1 CITY OP' LAKE OSWEGO 7 4.0 1 0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES Meeting of November 19, 1990 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Foster called the meeting to order at approximately 7;50 p,m, II. ROLL CALL. Board members present were Mr, Starr, Mr, Greaves, Mr, Foster, Mr, Stanaway, Ms, Remy, Mr. Bloomer and Mr. Sievert, ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - none IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - none 0 V. PUBLIC HEARING del: -90JVAR.4.90 (a-ba, a request by Dennis E. Eastman, Engineer for approval to upgrade the existing service station, which requires a Class II variance to the Access Standard and a Class I variance to the 25' setback requirement. The site is located at 760 N, State Street (Tax Lots 1600 & 1700 of Tax Map 2 1 E 3t0A), The applicant has requested continuance to December 17, 1990. Mr, Greaves moved for a continuance of OR 2-901VAR 6-90(a-b) to December 17, 1990, Mr, Stanaway seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert, Mr, Stanaway, Mr, Greaves, Mr. Foster, Ms, Remy, Mr, Starr and Mr,. Bloomer voting In favor, -.- M - - -'- - - - -' - -M -w - • -'. M H -.- M..- - - A. - - M -� Y - # M 1` - N:W. - M AY. -:M - -..N - ♦ 1-4 fl N ? -'Y aR 19-99Q1V,A,R 29»9Q, a request by Birtchor Frank Properties for approval to construct a 6,000 sq, ft, restaurant lot. The parking lot is proposed to serve an additional 7,500 sq. ft, dimensions of the Parking Standard [7.020( 7)1, The site 1'1 19/90 DRS Minutes fle Page 1 of 8 is located adjacent to Kruse Way, Kruse Oaks Boulevard and Centerpointe 411 Drive (Tax Lot 1100 of Tax Map 2 1 E6), Chairman Foster asked if there was any ex parte contact or bias from the Board 1 in regards to this application, Mr, Galante stated that there had been numerous applications within the Centerpointe office complex. Mr, Galante said that the 6,000 sq, ft, proposed would be one of two restaurants that would go on the restaurant pad. Mr, Galante stated that this is proposed as a Chile's Restaurant, Mr. Galante said that the materials and character'of the structure were explained thoroughly in the packet, Mr. Galante said that Staff was recommending approval with seven conditions, Staff was recommending that the applicant submit a Class I Variance request for the proposed signage;a tree survey be done on the property; site lighting to be compatible with existing lighting; irrigation plan provided for the entirebuilding site and parking lot; an arborist to provide guidelines for preservation of the trees to remain on the site; final drainage and utility plans to be submitted to the City Engineer; and the applicant shall comply with the City Charter requirements for road widening, &p_plIoant Kep Lewis, pirtchar Frank Properties, stated that they areproposinga 2,58' acre site development, Mr. Lewis stated there would be a paing facility for 195 cars and a 6,000 sq, ft, Chile's restaurant, Mr, Lewis stated that there was currently another restaurant design to go on the property, also and would be presented to the Board as a separate application. Mr. Lewis stated that the seating capacity for the proposed restaurant would be 217; the future restaurant would be 7,500 sq, ft, and would assume the seating capacity would be slightly more than Chiles, Mr, Lewis stated that they have no problems with the conditions recommended by Staff. Mr, Lewis said they are currently working on a Class I variance and are willing to work with staff until an agreement is reached, The staff asked questions of the applicant in regards to the submitted material, Mr. Lewis stated to the Board that they would continue to work with the staff on all conditions, 11/19/90 DRB Minutes, Page 2 of 8 ......,' Qpponents Torn Sullivan asked about the development on the additional site, Board and Staff updated him on the current status for the development on the site, Mr, Sullivan stated that he was opposed to the project because there were too many restaurants in the area already, Mr, Sullivan stated that there were too many trees proposed to be cut aehult si ,<en Lewis stated that there is a requirement of open space on the site of 48%, Mr,Lewis stated that they would be replacing some of the trees removed, Mr, Lewis stated that the current OOPS allows for 20,000 sq, ft, of restaurant on the site; they are requesting 13, 670 sq, ft, due to the size of the site, Mr, Lewis stated that they are proposing 1 parking space for every 69 sq, ft. Pellberatior! The Board stated that they would like to review the variance on the signage instead of staff, The Board stated that they would like to save tho trees on the edges and replant them in the center of the site, The Board stated that they wanted the applicant to propose a color board on the awnings for approval, Mr. Grooves moved for approval of DR 19-901VAIR 29-90 in accordance of the conclusions and recommendations and the modification of Condition #1 to include the submission through the Board of a Class I variance request for' signage and In addition the applicant provide a color photo for review of the awning color, Ms. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr Sievert, Mr. Stanaway, Mr. Greaves, Mr, Foster, Ms, Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer voting in favor, }t M- M 4 -w' M ♦ Y '♦. Y - -♦.M ♦ ♦ r Y.- b N.♦. -...h ♦ . M ♦ ♦ M. M ♦ 1! 'M'w • M F.. M w M ♦. s 1` M -. M S ♦ • M ♦ ♦ M Y' R 21-901 a request by Hans Heuer for approval of 650 sq, ft, secondary dwelling unit to be constructed above an existing garage, The site Is located at 805 "E" Avenue (Tax Lot 7800 of Tax Map 21 B 380). Chairman Foster asked if there was any ex parte contact or bias from the Board in regard to this application. There was none 11 19190`t RB Minutes (10 Page 3 of 8 Mr Wheeler stated that the applicant was requesting to construct a 60 s , ft, di secondary dwelling unit above an existing garage in the First Addition Neighborhood, Mr, Wheeler stated that the site is 12,000 sq. ft, Mr, Wheeler stated that the applicant has shown that there will be an additional off street parking space for the proposed dwelling. Mr, Wheeler stated that photos af6-1 demonstrate how heavily the site is vegetated. Mr. Wheeler stated that there Were no trees proposed for removal with the application. Mr, Wheeler stated that staff found the application to be in compliance with the applicable standards and criteria. Staff recommended approval of the application with 5 conditions. Mr. Wheeler entered Exhibit ft17, a letter from the First Addition Neighbors in support of his application. APP.iioarit Hs Hlc i t, stated that he had spent a lot of time planning the project without having to remove any trees, He said the site had a park like setting and was really private. Mr. Heuer stated that he didn't understand why an extra dry well was needed because the proposed unit would only be an additional 150 sq, ft. of roof area, Al Mr. Heuer stated that the fence was installed in the spring and removal of it would change their standard of living they had hoped for, Mr. Heuer stated that the gate could be widened. Mr. Heuer stated that In regards to the parking, the tenant doesn't drive. Mr, Heuer stated that he could have proposed 800 sq, ft. of dwelling and he chose to stay at 650 sq, ft. The proposed dwelling will not be seen due to a tree canopy nine months out of the year. Ql Konent John, honkw)le , stated that he was speaking on behalf of Marsha Beck at 839 East Avenue, Lake Oswego; house Immediately to the west on other side of alley. Mr. Shonkwiler stated that there was no objection to the secondary dwelling be approved. Mr. Shonkwiler stated that Ms, Beck had concern about privacy and designs of the project that could be altered slightly to ensure privacy. Mr. Beck stated that Section 48.547(8) speaks of buffering and privacy for second dwelling. Mr. Shonkwiler stated that the flood light being proposed Is directly across from Ms, Beck's property. Mr. Shonkwiler stated that they would like either the flood light to be eliminated or a down casting light Instead, 11/19/90 DAB Minutes Page4of8 Mr. Shonkwiler stated that he is concerned with five people in the 900 sq, ft, lw dwelling and an additional person in the 650 sq, ft. dwelling, Mr. Shonkwiler asked that the applicant be restricted with the use of the garego within accordance of Lake Oswego Code 48,015(19). Mr, Shenkwiler stated that Ms. Beck is not objected to the secondary dwelling, however she is concerned about the impact on privacy to herself, Ms, Beck has asked for four conditions to be imposed to ensure her privacy, Rebuttal Hans Hotter, stated that in regards to the flood light he was understanding because he had to deal with neighbors floodlights. Mr, Heuor stated that he would be willing to adjust the light or change the light to a non-glare light and ksrep the light within his property, Mr. Heuer stated that he had not seen the letters and exhibits that were brought forward at the meeting and therefore was not prepared to respond. The Board recessed for five minutes to allow him time to review the materials, Mr. Heuer stated that he would work with staff on revising the fence to widen the access. Mr, Heuer stated that the windows do not invade the privacy of others because they don't face the house. Mr, Heuer stated that he wants to go out of his way to work with his neighbors and satisfy them. Deliberation The Board felt that the light should be shaded. The Board wanted a gate for all three spaces. The Board did not find a problem with the windows. Mr. Stanaway moved for approval of DR 21.90 based upon the findings, reasons and conclusion in the staff report and of the Board deliberations with conditions stated in the staff report. Ms, Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert, Mr. Stanaway, Mr Greaves,Mr, Foster, Ms. Remy, Mr. Starr arid Mr. Bloomer voting in favor, W W Mr:W;� F M W W S I b K Y W 5 M s %':r 1 Y S S x w 5 M 5 s W M W:5 s w Y A% Y 1 r 5 1 s r k S* ►♦s S 1k;a.M 1 1/t9/90 ORB Minutes Page 5 of 8 p 20-00(Mc 4• lo.001, a request by Terry L. Goldbeck for approval to construct a one-story 6,000 sq, ft, office\retail structure with 80 parking spaces. The site is looated on the south side of Galewood Street in Mercantile Villego (Tax Lots 2000, 2100 & 2200 of Tax Map 2 15 8BE3) Chairman Foster asked if there was any ex parte contact or bias in regards to this application, There was none, Mr. Galante stated that this was for an office building in the Meroaritile building area. Mr Galante said that the applicant was able to receive a zone change by a parking easement on the adjacent property, Mr, Galante stated that there was some water quality and 0B0 issues on the property. There is a wetland in the Mercantile Village and provides storm water detention. Mr. Galante stated that the applicant has not provided information on water quality. Mr Galante stated that he was concerned about the preservation of the trees on the property, Mr, Galante said that the letter from the arborist did not carefully say what was proposed for the trees, Mrs Galante stated that they still needed information on storm drainage from the 411 applicant. Mr. Galante entered Exhibit #1 G and i117 into the record, Mr Galante stated that the staff was recommending continuation of this hearing to a date certain, Appiican Zorry cr ldbeek, stated that the proposed project is designed to be distinctive and compatible to the surrounding structures. A single level design was chose to have the least Impact on surrounding residential neighborhoods. Mr. Goldbeck stated that certain areas of the site would be fenced off during construction to minimize disturbance to the trees and vegetation, Mr, Goldbeck stated a 8' cedar fence would be built between the residential neighborhood and the site for buffer. They had wanted to use vegetation for the buffer, however are required to use a fence. 11/19/90 ORB Minutes Page 6 of Mr. Goldbeck stated that the zoning for the site was determined by the traffic study. Mr, Goldbeck stated that this facility was designed to handle the storm water run- off for the Mercantile Village development area in the Master Plan, Mr, Goldbeck stated that he proposed a condition to meet the new standards on drainage to work with Don Murray, Mr. Goldbeck stated that there are 57 trees on the site, He has worked on saving and retaining the trees, Mr. Goldbeck said that there are six trees they are concerned with that are close to curb lines. Neittier in favor norsa90ip t ruce Go o ) stated that in reviewing the application he was unable to tell how many trees wore being removed and saved. He had concern because this is one of the last grove of trees in the area, Mr. Golctson stated'that some of the trees wore very large. Mr, Gaidson stated that the residents would like to see additional screening other than the fence, He said the trees were the big issue In the neighborhood, Mr. Galdson stated that there was concern with the storm run-off. 41) Mr. Goldson stated that he was in favor of the plan being one story and there were good points of the plan, however they wore confused with the plans for the trees, fithalitoi Terry Qoldbecic, stated that the tree survey was done by WG Wells and Associates and they pinpointed the trees on the survey. Mr. Goldbeck stated that they were reproducing a location off a tree survey onto the site plan and it should be real close in proximity. 0,eiIeratidr The Board fait there was more information needed for staff to make a recommendation and would like to see the hearing contirsr jad, Ms. Remy moved to continue DR 2045 to December 3, 1990 for mt.r r information, Mr. Greavos seconded the motion and It passed with Mr, Sievert, 11/19/90 OMB Minutes 1101 Page 7 of 6 Mr, Stanaway, Mr, Grooves, Mr, Foster, Ms. Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr, Bloomer • voting in favor. VI. GENERAL PLANNING VII, OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order Mr Foster moved for approval of the findings, conclusions end order of VAR 23-90(a"b), Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it passod with Mr. Sievert, Mr, Stanaway, Mr. Foster, Mr, Starr voting in favor. Mr, Greavos abstained vote, Mr. Greaves moved for approval of the findings, conclusions and order of DR 7-;10(Mod. 9.90), Mr, Bloomer seconded the motion and It passed with Mr, Sievert., Mr, Grooves, Mr. Foster, Ms, Remy and Mr, Starr voting in favor. Mr. Stanaway abstained vote, Mr. Starr moved for approval of the findings, conclusions and order of DR 10.90, Mr. Sievert seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert, Mr, Greaves, Mr, Foster, Ms. Remy and Mr, Starr voting In favor, Mr, Stanaway and Mr, Bloomer abstained vote. 0. VIII. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 10 40 p.m. 11/19/90 ORB Minutes 410 Page 8 of 8 AP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES November 5, .I990 Chair Robert H Foster called the regular Development Review Board meeting of November 5, 1990 to order at 74,30 p.m, in the City Council Chambers, Harry,$tarr,(linger Remy, Robert Foster., Robert °reeves trod Nor nan Sievert were present, Skip Shimmy and James Bloomer were absent, III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 5, 1990 October 1, 1990 Mr, Graves moved to ri ��c,ve the March 5,199()tinir titt cs, Mr, Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr Greavcs,Mr, Foster, M .Remy and Mt.Starr voting in favor, Mr, Sievert abstained, IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS ob iitime,, . iib cumin i' etor, reported that they had received at letter from Rustrum requesting staff to investigate whether or not the house next door to hint violated setback requirements, staff would do so and report back at the next meeting, V. PUBLIC IllEARINC .D . -9 CMo 790), a request by Lake Oswego School District 7J for approvai to modify conditions A,1 5(drainage system and A,1 6(Sidewalks)of the original Development Review Board Order, The site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Meii'oso and Kingsgate (Tax Lot 600 of Tax Map 2 lE 6AC). Staff coordinator is ilottillityitiz ai,..4 Y9,19p ic.ii , !'itxw .n Chair Foster reviewed the hearing procedures and asked the Board for ex part`contacts,bias or conflicts of interest. There were none. Mr, Pishvaie presented the staff report(dated 10/26/90), He reviewed two of the conditions under which this project was approved on June 18* 1990 the sidewalk along m ags a)te and drainage from the playing field, lie explained that condition A 15 required that the soccer field drain towards the southeast corner of the site, however during preparation of the final construction plans,,staff and the applicant realized that that was r+ot feasible. Staff recommended deletion of this condition, ivxr, pishvaaic noted that originally staff had recommended a buffer for the mountable curb on the five foot wide Kingsgate sidewalk for pedestrian safety reasons. However, the,applicant Aiiik Development Review Board Minutes Page 1. of 16 VP November 5, 1990 Increased the width of the sidewalk to eight feet, Staff felt conarertable that this width increase would provide the necessary security for pedestrians and ugiced with the applicant's request to change the sidewalk to a curbllne, Chair Foster asked where the water would drain to. Mr, Plshvaie stated that it would drain to the southwest corner and the existing public system and not into the wetlands area. He said that this would not ncgntiveiy impact the wetlands as the water draining there came from the stream along the east property line Ms,Remy asked if they should conditiota the approval to include a requirement that the field dram to the southwest corner, 'Mr, Pishvatie said that the Board could do so if it wished but that it was not necessary tas it has already been taken care of on the construction plans, DE1411$ERATION Ms, Remy moved for approvja ctf )ft .9( 0 9.9( Mr, Sievert ,seconded the motion and it Passed with Mr, Sievert,Mr, Greavc s, Mr, Foster,Ms,Remy a and Mr,Starr voting in favor, S,: ,'tza ),a request by Harold & Linda tolatnd for approval of a twee-parcel minor land partition and a future street plan, The sue is located at 157$0 SW 't'win Pir Road (Tax Lots 5300& 5100 of Tax Mop 2 1l BAC), Staff coordinator Is iltunki.Pishvoie,.Pey,elop.ni Ask RIP UIIIU1 Chair Foster reviewed the hearing procedures and asked the Board year ex parte eontncts,bias or conflicts of interest, Mr. Sievert stated that be had encoded a Lake Grove Neighborhood Association meeting where this application was briefly discussed tutct declared no bias, Mr Pishvaie presented the staff report(dated 10/26/90), lie said that the applicant has presented the future street plan recommended by staff to show how this area could be served once further development occurred. Exhibit 5 showed the two access options, He pointed out that the applicant also owned Tax Lots 5100 and 900, tie started that the proper utilities were available in the street (water and sewer); however pined 2 could not use the existing 'Twin Fir sewer line so staff recommended extending the.pried hroolk sewer line, Mr,Pishvaie reviewed the underlying zone(R•10)a and lot size and setback requirements(p. 5), He stated that normally this type of request was handled administratively but staff recommended that this application come to a public hearing because or the neighborhood Interest in it, Mr, Pishvtade reviewed the reasons why staff felt a future,street plan was necessary* other land parcels in that area had redevelopment potential and the City needed to limit access to Twin Ph Road(a major collector)and provide the most efficient Use of land and the best possible access, He explained Options A&13 of the future street plan (Exhibit,5)*noting that staff preferred OptionA, Option A made the intersection at Twin Fir and Douglas Circle Development[review Board Minutes Page 2 of 16 Mr November 5, 1990 a controlled Intersection; also the joint ownership of Tax Lots Q00, 5100 and 5300 made it easy and feasible to obtain a right of way to accommodate fut. access in the area. He pointed out that the garage of the existing residents was locateu in the proposed 30 foot right of way; it could be moved to the back of the house. Staff recommended dedicating the right or way at this time if the Board found Option A preferable. Mr. Pishvaie said that staff recommended Option A with a requirement that the applicant work with staff to reach the final street alignment with consideration of the existing structure and any trees in the way, Mr, Pishvaie reviewed the current drainage swale on Parcel 2, He said that staff saw a need for an area drainage plan to determine the exact location of the swale and whether or not there are alternative locations for the swale, and a conceptual plan for the water quality branch system. He said that staff would determine whether or not the City could participate in the preparation of the plan (p, 7); the City Engineer told him today that the City did not have the staff currently to do this. However they were hiring an Environmental Project Supervisor whose job duties would include this type of analysis, The,applicants could either wait until the City hired the necessary staff or they could hire consultants themselves, Mr, Pishvaie noted that other properties in the area were on septic systems and that there was a need to look at the area utility needs, Staff recommended extending the sewer line from the Springbrook interceptor(Exhibit. 6) to provide adequate services both now and in the future, I°Ie suggested that this system be provided either through an 1..11) or through establishment of a payback system (the applicant would pay for the improvements at thi3 time with future developers making payments to reimburse him), 40 Chair Foster asked if existing houses in the area currently went to the Twin Fir Road sewer, Mr.Pishvaie stated that some did but there were at least time homes on septic, The alternative to the Springbrook extension was extension of the Iron Mountain/Upper Drive line, Chair Foster asked if Mr, Pishvaie had any comment on the exhibits received after October 26, Mr, Pishvaie stated that the issues raised were addressed in the staff report, He recommended approval of the application with the 19 conditions listed on pp. 8-10. APPLICANT rak hill ,i 57 0 Twitt1i oatl, owner of Tax Lots 5300 and 5100, stated that he had informed staff that he did not think it was his responsibility to provide a future street plan as he was neither qualified nor had his neighbor's permission to do so. He provided a future street plan at staffs behest but was very annoyed to discover that they mailed it to hi neighbors;he would not have submitted one if he knew it was going to his neighbors. He stated that he was not interested in future development. Mr.Arakellian stated that he sold Tax Lot 900 two months ago to the Dolands, He had met with staff and been assured that his plans presented no problem but on July 30 they received a letter from Charles Collett, the owner or Tax Lot 5402, objecting to his application. He Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 16 November 5, 1990 noted that Mr. Collett had built his garage on the north side of the house,he felt that city 111 staff should have recognized at the time of Mr, Collett's application three years ago the potential for development of the adjacent parcels and had him put the driveway and garage on the south side of his lot, Mr. Arakellinn reviewers Mr+ Collet's objections to his proposal: it would cut his two car garage,reduce the lot from 12,000 sq. ft to 9,000 sq, ft,and take out a lot of trees, He said that Mr. Collett did not think the traffic impact would change based on the location of the driveway, Mr. Arakeilian stated that Mr,Collett's suggestions were not feasible for his purpose. He cited other properties on upper Drive that had two driveways right next to each other, He said that the land contours on the proposed lots were almost identical to the contours of Lot 5402. He suggested that the City talk with all the property owners concerned if it wanted a future street plan, instead of with just one property owner, Chair Foster asked if the Tax Lot 900 owner would have to take access from Upper Drive. Mr.Pishvaie stated that that was one of the options in the future street plan, He said that City policy was to discourage access points onto collector streets if alternatives were available. He noted that the intent was to serve the back portion of this lot, Chair Foster asked if the Tax Lot 900 owner would have participate in the construction of this new street, Mr, Pishvaie said he would have to improve the road if he wanted to partition in the future, OPPONENTS ghliriMCWALL5.1UnvaLtritliPid owner or Tax Lot 5402, pointed out the letters he and his wife have submitted regarding tits application. He urged the Board to accept the staff report proposals and recommendations, should the Board approve this project, Mr.Collett reviewed his immediate concerns us expressed in his letters: his property would be surrounded by two flag lots, the removal of l otigitis firs,another driveway on a busy street,the removal of it utility pole and possibly the stop sign, lack of privacy:for neighbors in the area, and drainage problems, Mr. Collett reviewed his concerns about future development: the temporary access easement requested by the Arakellhuis for the flag lot taught become pernittttent if no other access was feasible and the need for City planning to provide:the best access and trAftic pattern',in the area, should other lots be developed, Mr.Collett stated that they supported the staff report because they thought it met the conditions of most of the neighbors, However he suggested three additional conditions; denying the temporary access on the south side of Lot 5300,accepting the study on the potential effect of the building on the drainage,swede and regtdring the applicant to work with staff on the best implementation of recommendations 9 and 10(removal of the garage). Development Review Board Mitutte4 Page 4 of if November 5, 1990 Steve Williams, 15810 Twin Fir Road, owner of Tax Lot 4901, pointed out that the neighbors to the east of the proposed development all owned large wooded lots, some with horse pastures and stands of firs, maples,elms and alders, He said that the removal of standing timber would substantially change the character of the area and cause numerous drainage and erosion problems, He said they were already threatened by increased traffic flow and that widening Twin Firs would only add to the unsafe conditions for the children, Mr,Williams stated that Option A was unacceptable to he and his wife as it would diminish their property by 30%, drastically reducing the property value because they would not be able to pasture horses, This option would also put another intersection within 170 feet of the Brookside/Twin Fir intersection. Mr.Williams said that Option B was also unacceptable because it would decrease his lot and Lot 4900 to below the minimum standards for keeping horses, A culdehae was out of character for the neighborhood and would permit the development of six more lots, adding to the traffic problems and compromising the livability, security and integrity of the neighborhood, He urged the Board to deny the request and asked that the future street plan as diagrammed be stricken from city maps, Mr. Williams stated that he had by notified by his neighbors (not the City) of this proposal after they were notified by mail;his notification was laid on his doorstep a week later, In response to questions from Chair poster,Mr, Williams stated that he was on city sewer, that his lot was 1.1 acres and that it could be subdivided • Ban Turner, t ,9 i3ropleti,l le,owner of Tax Lot 4900, stated that he had not been notified by the City at all,and Option A&13 would affect his property. He agreed with Mr, Williams' comments, pointing out that even more timber would be removed if either option was approved, lie thought a was important that city staff be aware of what a neighborhood wanted to preserve for the future, lie stated that none of the existing owners intended to develop their lots, He did not understand how the City could take land from six other property owners to allow one property owner to profit from his land. He asked for instructions on the appeal process and identification of which properties the sewer line would go through, .lcpJ er Futtk,, 925jippet,Duve,owner of Tax Lot 800,handed out a sheet to the Board He stated that he was primarily opposed the culdesaac for the following reasons: lack of involvement of the neighbors in the planning process, the number of trees potentially cut down for the culdesac, and confusion over who owned the title to some of the property Mr. Arakellian had surveyed. He explained that he checked with his title company following his discovery of a surveyor's stake on his land; they said it was his property but Mr. Arakellian believed that it was his, He recommended that Options A 8413 not be considered as valid access options to the back area. He stated that he was also opposed to hooking up the sewer,as his septic system served his family quite well. i 1 n plettk,A9 .1 t pp. , PJi e,stated that the property value of her home would decrease if the south access were allowed because of the removal of the trees,_her home was designed to look out on thescenery and was appraised as being in a parklike setting. She asked that Aigh Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 16 November 5, 1990 the south access be denied, She said that she had written a letter to the Planning Department 410 (7/31) questioning the position of the survey stakes because she didn't think they looked right, She asked for validation of the survey accuracy before any development was done, In response to Board questions, Ms, Triplett confirmed that she had a flag lot abutting Tax Lot $3O0 with the driveway on west side towards Twin Fir, She said that she had a pump up to the sewer on Upper Drive, dol) McLaigblin, I,SQQ SW Twin Fir Road, owner of Tax Lot 4800, entered a letter into the record listing his concerns, He said that if Option A was implemented,he would have paved roads on three sides of his small lot which would lower his property values; he thcut ht that was a liability that the City should accept as its liability, Mr.;McLaughlin pointed out that a comparison of the tree inventory (Exhibit, 4) and the map showing the proposed road (Exhibit, 5) revealed that 27 out of 50 trees would be removed under Option A, He did not think that the building permit process would redress that. He objected to creating further subdivision,contending that this road:would be a magnet for subdivision because Its existence almost made subdivision an economic necessity for the owners. He held that the road would increase, not minimize, traffic impacts. Mr.McLaughlin stated that Twin Firs Road would be a very difficult road to widen because the grade of where it currently ran was higher than the right of way surrounding it (the road was two inches higher than his front yard). Lie endorsed his neighbors' comments, 5,y_lyk,Keller.,15_6,511winliirRoad,stated that she agreed with the comments of Steve Williams and Brian McLoughlin. She also was concerned about the character of the neighborhood. She said that she and her husband opposed the future street plan as outlined,. She expressed concern about the traffic situation, staying that a thorough traffic study was needed. She noted that the neighbors'comments tonight indicated concern about the future street plan(which simply meant more development), Though she knew two families were opposed to the flag lot,she thought that a flag lot was the most feasible idea, She said that her property had streets on three sides and that most people haddriveways on two sides of their property, She stated that she opposed the future,street plan but not the flag lot, Nary, tt 1C vitZ, l- 9., O,:Twil 11f1, owner of Tax Lot 5402,stated that she was concerned about the drainage, She has lived here 22 years and had pointed out the probable drainage problems when Lot 5402 was developed; unfortunately she was not listened to and the problems occurredjust as she had thought they would: the houses interfered with the drainage, She urged the Board to pay attention to the drainage study and not to expect it to "just work out" because it wouldn't. Pnaice cCtiddep,,1,2(_l ,r Si e, owner of Tax Lot 4700, stated that she agreed with Mr. Williams, Mr. Turner and Mr, McLoughlin, She and her husband were opposed to the development, In response to a question front Chair Foster,Ms, McCadden stated that the sewer was available to her property but they haven't hooked up yet. Ask Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 16 NIP November 5, 1990 Byron Hall, 0 wi 'r R a , stated that he and his wife lived on a half acre lot directly across from Tax Lot 4800 at the corner of Douglas Circle and Twin Fir+ He stated that he saw a unanimous opposition to this proposed development based on the testimony given tonight, He resented that he had not been notified either,pointing out that his driveway would back right out into an intersection under Option A He stated that he has had to repair fences and hedges because of people speeding down the hill and not making the turn onto Douglas Circle, He said they have seen numerous accidents, Mr. Hail reiterated that the everyone with property abutting this proposed development was opposed to it. He said that they had moved here because of the character and livability of the neighborhood, including the opportunity to board horses. He said they felt strongly that both Option A and 13 would ruin the character of the neighborhood. He stated that there were many who did not want to divide up their property, though he understood that that was no guarantee of that in the future, Mr, Hall said that his request for a stop sign at Douglas Circle and Brookside has not been filled, lie,stated that he felt strongly this would decrease the property values in the neighborhood. Ile expressed concerns about overcrowding in the school and tree removal, Mr. Hall expressed a hope that the Board would listen to the neighborhood who only wanted to preserve the natural beauty of the area, He thought that roads would disturb the natural drainage, He did riot think that the report appropriately addressed nanny of the issues, He said be and his wife were not in favor of this at all, ' ry„,e bttt'te►1. ,15 4Q Twat Fir,owner of Tax Lot 4901,stated that Option A would • empty out across the street from his house, 1;1e objected to Options A & 13 for the following reasons, it was taking property away from people against their will, hick of notification, and the inappropriateness of Twin Far as a main artery. He said that it was important for the City to listen to the wishes of the neighbors. Mr,Nearengarten stated that the stop :sign at Douglas Circle and Twin Fir has been very helpful and recounted an incident just prior to its installation in which he and a young girl walking with her father were almost killed by a speeders Mr,Nearengarten pointed out that the Hunt Club was a unique facility, and that the area around it should allow sonic homes (like theWilliams) to keep horses; otherwise they lost a lot of the character, tt9fge..Sei 1 11ti ,„Priv_a;, stated that traffic on Upper Drive has increased by 200 cats daily over the last year, and that the City could not control.it. The City has not yet put in the stop sign at Lakeview and Upper Drive promised three years ago. Ile contended that 20 houses could go in this area,adding potentially 40 cars to Upper Drive and Twin[sir, tie expressed concern about the drainage and Options A &13. Ile stated that he had not been notified either. g j niA35 ,roo sjde stated that their property abutted where Option 13 would come out on Brookside Road; they were across from.Tax Lot 4900, She said that they were not notified either. Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 of iG Mr November 5, 1990 NEITHER IN FAVOR NOS? OPPOSED J rry Jones,2847 Upper Drive, owner of Tax Lot 1000, said that he was not opposed to the partition but would like to be hooked up to the sewer, REBUTTAL Mr, Arkellian said that he was embarrassed by what was happening because it was not professional, He stated that he has been against the future street plan from the beginning, and that staff should have approached everyone. He and his family have lived here for 30 years BOARD QUESTIONS In answer to questions from Chair Foster, Mr, Arakellian stated that he had no plans to subdivide Tax Lot 5100. Chair Foster commented that the staff and city were planning ahead to protect the circulation and traffic flow for future subdivisions of thus neighborhood, Mr; Arakelliansaid that he agreed but that this was trot the way to doit, lie reiterated that the city should have gotten all the property owners together to discuss the situation. Ms,Remy asked if it was still correct that anyone affected within 300 feet was supposed to be notified, Mr,Pishvaie stated that was true but that the list staff used for notification was provided to them by the applicant, the staff did not check the accuracy or the list, Mr, Galante asked to enter into the record the list provided by the applicant. 4111 Mr, Pishvaie explained that he changed the notice the second time it went out by copying l3xhibit, 5 on the back of it so the people would know exactly what was proposed, He reiterated that staff usually handled this type of request administratively but chose to bring it to a public hearing to allow public comment, Chair Foster asked where the sewer would be located. Mr, Pishvaie said that they did not know yet, He mentioned a four foot strip of land on Lot 5300 extending to the creek as a possible location. Chair Foster asked Mr. Pishvaie to describe what would happen if the eight acres of Lot 4900 were subdivided 10 or 15 years from now with or without a street plan. Mr, Pishvaie stated that there was a misconception on the part of the citizens that the city would implement Immediately one of the future street plan options if the Board approved the application; this was not true. This plan was intended to serve as a model for the future to be followed as individual property owners chose to develop their land, The city was not requiring dedication of any land at this time, and no one's property values would decrease as a result of losing land, Mr,Pishvaie explained that if the owner of Tax Lot 4900 wanted to partition his lot, and there was no future street plan,he would have to improve Brookside Road and take his access from there, Chair Foster noted that the road was not actually set except for what was AK Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of 16 November 5, 1990 decided for Tax Lots 5100 and 5300, Mr, Pishvaie said that each property owner would have to improve the portion of the road that abutted his property, He also stated that staff did not want to cut down 27 trees for the road and thought they could align the road to avoid the trees, Chair Foster asked about the staff recommendation to deny the temporary access. Mr, Pishvaie said that Exhibit, 9 and 10 took care of that issue by acquiring dedication of 20 feet of right of way with 20 feet of improvement and by requiring removal of the gatrage, The Board could make it a condition if they so wished. An audience member clarified that the parcels were only one acre parcels, not eight acre parcels; the road took up a significant portion of the properties Mr. Starr asked if the City would be obligating the property owners to subsidize the road, Mr, Pishvaie stated that each property owner would be required to provide the improvement on their property if his/her property were developed; the developer always had to pay his/her share of the costs, Chair Foster reviewed what would happen if Lot 4901 split before the surrounding lots were developed, A temporary driveway would have to go in with the owner signing.a nonretllonstrance agreement with the city to make improvements to the access once the other lots developed. An audience member asked for a point of clarification; could a prolaa;tta be made to keep the property intact? • Ms, Remy asked if each of the three main lots could be subdivided only into three lots each (e, 35,000 sq, ft lots in a R-10 tone), Mr, Pishvaie stud that was correct unless something changed Linda Goland asked for to point of order,stating that she mid her husband had no intention of subdividing, Chair Foster stated that it was obvious that everyone was against subdivision but they could not know the future in a zone that allowed people to subdivide, Mr, Galante pointed out that,despite the options before it,the Board's decision was whether or not the applicant has complied with all city codes,standards end policies in asking for a partition. He explained that start's recommendation on the future street plan was based on trying to find an efficient form of future: land development, Ms,Griffin asked if there was a way to have the area zone changed. Mr.Galante explained that comments from the audience not made at the podium were not picked up by the tape recorder. He thought it was likely that this decision would be appealed and they would need to have on adequate transcript. He asked the Board to get the people to the podium. isk Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 16 11111, November 5, 1990 Mr, Greaves asked if the people could request a zone change, Mr, Galante explained that anyone could initiate a zone change for property they owned; the request would be heard before the Planning Commission, He noted a difficulty in requesting down-zoning due to the imposed state requirement on the City for to 10 unit per acre overall density, The City was right at that level and any change would put them itt jeopardy of meeting their goal, DELIBERATION Mr, Orcaves stated that he had three areas of major concern. He did not think the applicant 11 had provided informationproving that this development would not adversely affect neighboring properties in terms Of drainage, He thought that the drainage plan should be worked out in advance instead of being a condition of approval, He was concerned about the removal of trees and the traffic:impacts. Mr, Greaves said that his third concern was the lack of adequate notification given to the citizens which might have allowed them to address the impact management policy better, He explained that only a neighbor who did not testify tonight and had not received notification could appeal the decision based on lack of notification, Mr,Oreaves said,if this went through, he would favor the staff report recommendations because it was an underdeveloped.area.He preferred Option 13 as having_ less of an impact on Twin Fir, However he was not in favor of getting the future street plan tonight, Ms. Remy noted that there was almost 100% opposition to the Street plan, She commented that the purpose of the Beard was to bear the concerns of the public and it would be di defeating the pmpose not to listen to them, She said that she favored approving the temporary access in the minor partition but not the Option A or B accesses, Mr,Starr said that he concurred with most of what had been said, tie did not favor granting the temporary access or partition;he was in favor of denying the whole application beeaase or the impact on the neighborhood and the poor notification. He expressed sympathy for the neighbors and support tokeep the lots the size they were tnow Mr,,.Sievert noted that the existence of smaller flag lots inure area indicated that subdivision was occurring already, He was troubled about providing temporary access on the south side because it would be another driveway too close:to Upper Drive, He wondered if it was possible to provide tt temporary access on the north where Option A went and put off the issue of access under Options A&13 He thought this might not be an issue for 20 years but that future property owners would want access instead of having flag lots off of Twin Fir, Mr Sievert said ha sympathized with the neighbors regarding the traffic on Twin Fir but did not think they would face the option of the course of the road until someone else wanted to partition. He thought it might be possible to align the road without destroying the trees, He suggested extending the access as an easement in the future. Chair Foster asked Mr,Sievert what he thought of providing an easement across the east side of 5 MO to the north, Mr.Sievert said he didn't see as need.unless it became subdivided, Be did not agree with the temporary access on the east side. Aiik Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 of 16 ITV November 5, 1990 Aiihk The Board discussed the issue of an easement. Ms. Remy stated that an easement for a lir driveway on either side did not bother her. She thought the north side was a nice option but understood there was a garage in the way, Chair Foster noted that the applicant would have garagedrivewaytrees; might have to go on to either move the or meander the to miss the it to Lot 5100, Ms,Remy commented that the applicant owned both properties, Mr. Sievert suggested putting the driveway on the north side and providing a temporary access with a dedication for the easement for the future, Chair Foster commented that the street plan had to provide more than simply access to the back lot; it had to give an easement across to the properties and then end. Whoever owned the properties could decide which way the road went after that, Ms. Remy said that,she was not opposed to that, provided the people were agreeable, Chair Foster commented that it was up to the Board to protect the interests of the community by deciding what was needed in the conditions, Ms, Remy asked lvtr. Pishvaie if there was a specific reason the applicant choose the south, side over the north side, Mr, Pishvaie Mated that he did not know but thought it had something to do with the large fir trees, Chair Foster stated that he agreed with Mr. °reatves that the drainage issue has not been adequately resolved and should have been prior to Board review, Also the alignment of the sewer line that might connect down to the creek was an important issue, lie stated that he thought it reasonable tosubdivide the lot, as everyone had that option and some subdividing has already occurred. ifit Chair Foster did not think the southern temporary access was reasonable because such things tended to get built and never moved. He thought they should line the driveway up with Douglas Circle and meander the drive around the garage and trees to give access to the eastern portion of the site, Chair Foster said he thought the applicant should dedicate some type of casement across the north property line at the back of Lot 5100 to allow the option for the northern lot to connect up in that direction. He thought that the notice had been very poor. Mr. Greaaves agreed with.Chair Poster's analysis if they approved it. However, he thought that they should deny the application on the grounds of the drainage, the impart management policies, the notification and the sewer line alignment, He agreed that Chair Foster's suggestion for an casement across the northern property was a possible solution to a future problem. Chair Foster concurred with denying the application on those grounds, pointing out that water quality issues were not addressed at all. He thought that the applicant had the right to subdivide his property and that the city had a right to plan where major streets should go in the future to proterct the suhdividaability of the other tots The Board discussed denying the application without prejudice Mr. Galante explained that doing so waived the normal sib month waiting period before an applicant could bring the saame npplicaation back:to than Board, Amk Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 of 16 lir November 5, 1990 Mr,Greaves moved to deny without preludieeSD 33.2. Ms, Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Sievert,Mr, Greaves,Mr,Foster,Ms,Remy, and Mr, Starr voting la favor. % 4 Y K w • 1, Y !,,r w.k:._ _ _ R.T* M 4 4 M - n R sr R Ii h n w rr M M M M.i w.!+ .r n N'w..M.1`+ t M r n k r ti'.'�.r r 4i.Ft i. PR,i 7»99/y`A# 27-90,a request by Glenn E, Chilcote A,l',A, for approval of a 2,665 sq, ft, addition to an existing commercial structure. Also the applicant is requesting approval of a Class 11 variance to LOG 49,510(1) in order to protect a stand of mature trees. The site is located at 4255 S.W.0akridgc Road (Tax Lot 400 of Tax Mop 2 1 E SC13), Staff coordinator is Robert Galante,Acting Planning Directoq. Chair Foster reviewed the hearing procedures and asked the Board for ex pate contacts,bias or conflicts of interest, There were none, a report rt(dated l /26/90 He noted that the' Board has Mr, Galante presented the staff e,pa � ► d t) ), reviewed two other applications on this property. This application was to put in a permanent office addition in place of the temporary office addition approved before, Mr. Galante reviewed the five conditions of approval, On Condition I,he stated that staff recommended that the time has came for the half street improvements for Oakt`idge Road, He noted the number of mature fir trees along the frontage and stated sniffs intention to offset the street improvements and to meander the walkways to preserve the trees to the maximum degree possible, tit On Condition 2, Mr, Galante stated that the current plan showed a five to seven foot setback VW from,the rear property line for the small proposed parking lot; staff recommended that the final plans be revised to show the ten foot setback required for parking lots in commercial zones, He noted that the parking lot faced a bus storage area for the school district, The applicant has not requested the variance he would need to modify that ten foot setback requirement to five to seven teL On Condition 3,Mr.Galante noted that the City was pursuing the remaining street improvements on Oakridge and might have a storm dram line itt Gakridge about the time the applicant completed their portion of the improvements. On Condition 4,Mr, Galante noted that there was no formal landscape plan included in the pocket; the applicant proposed to preserve the existing landscaping, APPLICANT atongjillotc, ono terry /t L said that this additional 2520 sq. it building would be separate from the first building and integrated within the existing site to save tree cover and maintain the basic aesthetics of the site itself. He pointed out that the 12 cur employee parking lot was located in the northwest corner because it was the only open.space left without any fir trees, Ile stated that the design for the parking lot and its access drive was deemed the best configuration to;lave trees, Development Review Board Minutes Page 12 of 16 WV November 501990 Mr,Chilcote reviewed his concerns with Conditions 1 and 2. He agreed that Oakridge needed improvements but suggested completing them all at once through an LID, He pointed out the policy of improving local streets with a minimum disruption during their improvement, and contended that these improvements were not a minimal disruption. He stated,that Mr, Galante's mention of a storm drain was the first he'd heard of it; he thought it would be better to do an overall plan for the street that included a traffic analysis of the area and consideration of the regional storm drainage, He thought it was possible that his improvements would be redone when the city did its part of the street improvements, Mr,Chilcote reviewed that the owner,Mr, Squier, had set aside funds for the pathway required at the last hearing, Now staff indicated it wanted sidewalks, When he asked for clarification as to whether it should be a sidewalk or a pathway, the staff said that they didn't know yet, He reiterated that they needed to determine what would happen with the rest of the street before he did his improvements, Mi, Chilcote stated that he had not been aware of the requirement of a 10 foot setback on the proposed buck parking lot; it was considered a general commercial development and the 10 setback was not required. However,when he checked the zoning map,he discovered that the school was a conditional use in a residential zone and the 10 foot setback was required, He did not know this until a week ago, He asked for relief from that requirement as the parking lot was of minimal size anyway in order to save trees, a 10 foot setback eliminated two parking spaces, Mr, Chilcote presented severe) slides ol'the property and views from the property, gift Mr, Greaves asked if the applicant had approached the Oakridge Medical Clinic to ask them about an access casement through their parking lot to his rear parking lot, Mr. Squier stated that he had not done so because he did not think they would agree to it, as it would be quite an imposition, Chair roster asked what the setback was from the back property line to the parking lot, Mr. Chilcote said it averaged :5,5 feet; the line was at an angle so the setback varied from five to six feet. Chair Poster said that he did not think the Board could grant a variance just from an applicant's testimony. Mr, Galante stated that they could not do so, The Board could approve the development,as proposed and recommend that the applicant modify the application, Assuming the parking lot was the Mast thing to be constructed, the applicant could apply for the variance and possibly get it approved without stopping construction, He said the Board could recognize in their findings that the applicant would be coming back; they could also provide direction as whether or not it would be a worthwhile thing to do Mr Greaves asked if the applicant was proposing any landscaping along the northern edge, Mr, Squier stated that it would be logical to provide some landscaping, Mr.Starr asked ll'the corporation would be willing to make a nonremonstrance agreement to improve the street,if and when the rest of the street was improved, Mr, Chilcote said yes;he Development Review Bola] Minutes Page 13 of 16 MY November 5, 1990 reiterated that Mr.Squier understood the need for improvements but preferred to do it as a full development rather than piecemeal, NEITHER IN FAVOR NOR OPPOSE') ttsl ' , property owner, stated that he was not against the half street improvements themselves,he was against the timing of those improvements. He said he would be willing to participate in an LID as the most logical way to make those improvements and design and construct the whole street at once, As an engineer,he did not think it made sense to make an improved island in between unimproved ends at Quarry and I3oones Perry, Neither did he think it made sense to hope that the final grades for the storm drain and the present street would match the grades of the road 5 or 10 years from now. He thought they should plan the street grades to insure proper street drainage and grading to match the later improvernents Mr. Squier pointed out that contracting out such a small job was a hardship on him because he would have to pay 30% to 50% more for a short segment than for a full street contract. He pointed out the aesthetic problem of an improved island of first class street standing by itself amid an unimproved street when no one knew when the rest of the street would be similarly improved, BOARD QUESTIONS Mr,Greuves asked Mr, Galante how he felt about preparing at nonrentons.tranec for an LID versus the current staff reconunendatinn, Mr. Galante agreed that aesthetically and practically the staff recommendation was not the best solution but noted that staff was now lir consistently recommending half street improvements on developments, Ile mentioned uncertainty in thefuture as to whether the City could forma Lips because of Measure 5. He said some type of deposit was another option, tic reviewed the options and stated that the Board had to take some action to comply with the transportationpolicy, Chair Poster asked for an explanation of the deposit option, Mr. Galante said the applicant would have to estimate the cost of the half street improvements and make :a deposit on it, He said the difficulty was that the city did not have an effective system in place to handle that► Another option was the payment plan.Mr. Pishvaie had mentioned earlier, where the applicant paid for the entire street and was paid back as the other properties developed. He said staff was us frustrated as the applicant in how to get these improvements done. Mr,Greaves asked if they could require the applicant to begin the LID process. Mr.Galante said that they could require the applicant to submit a petition for the LID and a nonremonstrance, DELIBERATION Ms. Remy stated that she felt this was a fine project and supported requiring a nonremonstrance and LID petition. She thought the variance for the back parking lot was fine, Aik Development Review Board Minutes Page 14 of 16 yr November 5, 1990 Mr, Galante explained that the Board did not have to take action on the variance for the 10 foot setback, that was the applicant's responsibility. However the Board could rccon►mend that the applicant pursue the variance without giving false hope that the Board would grant it. Mr,Chilcote asked if the request for the variance to the 10 foot setback could be incorporated into the existing variance, Chair Poster said he would have to discuss that with staff, Mr, Galante stated that he could check the code to see if this type of variance could be handled administratively but he thought a setback variance had to come to the Board, Mr, Sievert stated that he did not have a problem with the setback, given the conditions of the school, He also favored the nonremonstrance agreement and petition for an LID. Mr. Greaves concurred with requiring them to petition for an LTD, He commented on putting some buffering along that property line but didn't think it made than much difference since they were up against a school, l-le asked if they could require a time frame for the petition. Mr.Galante stated that it should be done prior to issuance of building permits, Chair Foster said be agreed with everyone on the Board, Ms,I etuy moved to approve I)R 17.90/VAR 27.90 with the niociificattons to require a not►reronstrance agreenent and an L II) petition, Mr Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr:. Sievert, Mr, °Naaves, Mr, Foster,Ms, Remy, find Mr, Starr voting in favor, pR 18r90, a request by Michael Feves for approval to expand an existing commercial off ce 300 sq, ft, by enclosing a covered walkway. The site is located at 15630 SW Boones Ferry Road(Tax Lots 3000, 3001 ofTax Map 2 1E 813D), Staff coordinator is,i.lajpid Pishvale, Developti ft4 Lw 'ljt Chair Fester read the hearing procedures and asked the Board for any conflicts of interest, bias or ex parte contact, Mr,Qieaves stated that Mr. Feves was a client of the law firm at which he worked; as he has not discussed the project with Mr,Peves nor did he have any pecuniary interest in the project,he did not intend to excuse himself. He declared no bias. Mr.Galante presented the staff report(dated 10/26/90), He said that the requested change did not materially affect the building,the required landscaping or the parking, Staff recommended approval with the condition that the applicant submit a development schedule. APPLICANT ,Niiebael Fev s,,,3 I Nw', 181 , Portland, stated that they wanted to add 300 sqr ft to the Luis Snyder realty office by expansion into the covered walkway, This would be accomplished by enclosing that portion of the walkway with bronze aluminum windows, AK Development Review Board Minutes Page 15 of 16 ler November 5, 1990 DELIBERATION • Mr, Starr moved for approval of DR 1840. Chair Foster seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert,Mr. Greaves,Chair Foster, Ms. Remy and Mr. Starr voting in favor. ..a--wws s'k-. ♦--rr----w- ..— w.a rk--- n-:. k t--- r tt 1.n �' ht at!e 4 t aJ 414 4 N#krkM :. pg 19_90/YAR '9-90,a request by l3irtchwr frank Properties for approval to construct two restaurants on the 2,58 acre lot, The Chili's restaurant is included at 6,000 sq. ft, and the entire site will be improved leaving a prepared pad for a second restaurant at 7,500 sq, ft, A Class II variance is requested to modify aisle width between parking Stalls and to insure that major trews along the east side will remain. The site is located adjacent to Kruse Way, Kruse Oaks Boulevard and Centerpointe Drive (Tax Lot 1.100 of Tax Map 2 1t,6). Staff coordinator is Robert Galatalte,Acting. e,..0.19X. PLEASE NOTE,THIS il'TEM IS RESCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 19,1990. VI. GENERAL PLANNING VI. OTHER BUSINESS Findings.Conclusions and Order Chair Foster moved to approve VAR 17 90faa-(1)8/28 ` nclirr s cone arsitsns anti order Ms.Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Sievert, Mr, Grwaves, Chair Foster, and Ms, Remy voting in favor. Mr. Starr abstained, Ms. Remy moved to approve VAR 23.90(a-1)) 8/27 findings, conclusions npd,ortler, Mr. Sievert seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Sievert, Chair Foster, and Ms,Remy • ' voting in favor. Mr. Greaves and Mr. Starr abstained, Mr. Greuves moved to approve V"AR 25.90faa-1y)_11f29 findhuis conclusions and order, Ms.Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Sievert, Mt`, Greaves,Chair Foster, Ms. Remy and Mr. Starr voting in favor, Ms, Remy moved to approve 1)tt 12.90/11R 17.90 8/26 findings,conclusions and Mr,Sievert seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Sievert, Chair Foster, Ms.Remy and Mr.Starr voting in favor, Mr,'Creaves abstained. Chair Foster noted a correction on line 33 of'p, 21 it should read "property line of lot 12." Ms.Remy moved to a3)prnV the corrected findings, conclusions aind order for PU,7. p0/DR 16 90 8/30. Mr, Sievert seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert, Mr, Greaves, Chair Foster, and Ms, Remy voting in favor, Mr, Starr abstained. VII, ADJOURNMENT N,I, Chair Foster adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m, Development Review Board Minutes Page 16 of 16 111, November 5, 1990 Ammomers CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ki J 'JplipegyEl DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES October 29, 1990 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Robert H. Foster called the regular Development Review Board meeting of October 29, 1990, to order at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, II. ROLL CALL Board members present were James Bloomer, Ginger Remy, Robert foster, Robert Greaves, and Norm Sievert, Harry Starr and Skip Stanaway were not present, Staff present were Michael Wheeler,Assistant Planner; Humid Pishvaie, Development Review Planner; Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney; and Barb Anderson, Senior Secretary, III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None IV. I'ETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS -None V. PUBLIC HEARING VAR 17-90 (a-d), a request by Ed &Patrice Westphal for approval of the following tv��i:- variances`. a) A 25 foot Class 2 variance to the 25 foot required rear yard setback in an 1t-10 residential zone [LOC 48,215(1)1; b) A 25 foot Class 2 variance to the 25' Oswego Lake Special Setback [1,OC 48,535(3)), c) A 5' Class 2 variance to the 15' total required side yard setback in an R-10 residential zone [LOC 48.215(1)1; and, d) A 20.6% Class II (variance to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard which requires that at least 70%of the site remain free of structures and impervious surfaces. Only 49,4%of the site is proposed to remain free of such structures and surfaces. The site is located on Arrowhead Court, north of South Shore Blvd. (Tax Lot 800 of Tax Map 2 l C 8DD),Continued from October 15,1990. Chair Foster discussed the hearin► procedures and timelines for testimony. He then asked � y for any cx parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he then opened the public hearing. Michael Wheeler.Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Hc reviewed Exhibits 69 through 79. He recommended that the application be denied based on the fact that this was not a developable lot. He explained that the Board was at the point in the hearing of rebuttal , .. Development Review Board Minutes Page 1 of 12 October 29, 1990 by the applicant of the new information received in Exhibits 70-79(offered into the record as of October 15, 1990), REt30TTiL, Suchard Allen.Ball,Novae..14t.L $ ain, ilund}stated that they had been taken aback by Mr. Linville's evidence regarding the buildability of the lot, He said that with the new information provided by Mr, Wheeler,they conceded that there were valid regulations in place in 1953, He said that he could provide no evidence to refute 1953 as the earliest date: for this parcel existing as a separate lot, He stated that it did appear that the owners of thi lot for 30 years possibly did have an unbuildable lot,as he had not foetid any additional evidence to indicate that the lot was platted prior to the 1953 regulation giving 8000 square feet as the minimum lot size. Chair Foster closed the hearing for board deliberations. DELLUIERATIPN Mr, Bloomer moved to deny of VAR 17-90(all) bases on the fact MO the applicant has not satisfied the burden of proof as set out in the findings, reasons and conelusionc of the staff report and based upon the deliberations of this Board,and to request staff to prepare findings,conclusions and order reflecting this decision. Mr, Sievert seconded the motion.. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Sievert, Foster, Remy, and Bloomer voting in favor;Mr. Creaves abstained. 'M ni w N 1. -r b,:N. iw ti ti.N s M f w w M�wF w- . N 1+r M w.a w.a�w*w M w- n.a N N"fit:R ■ P w w - w.r N w w*w N'w N M N yA ti,540).X a request by Schollander Development for two variances as follows: a) A 15 ft Class 2 variance to the 20 ft. front yard setback required in an R-7.5 Residential zone [LOC 48.215(1)];and b) A Class 2 variance to the restrictions placed on nonconforming structures, which do not allow for any increase in the nonconformity of said structure [LOC 48.700(2)(b)and (3)) The site is located at 3531 Lakeview Blvd.,Tax Lot 2801 of Tax Map 2 I 8, Chair poster discussed the hearing procedures and timelines for testimony. He then asked for any ex parte contacts,bias or conflicts of interest, Ms, Remy noted that in the past she had worked with Schoilander Development indirectly but stated that it would not affect her decision. Chairman Foster then opened the public hearing. Michael Wheeler, ssocittte Planner, presented d the staff report. He said that the applicant had torn down tr former dwelling and rebuilt it, retaining the garage structure. Ile explained that the applicant determined that the turning radius from the existing garage was inadequate to serve the site,and proposed to move the garage four feet to the east and to shorten it by Development Review 13oard Minutes Page 2 of l? October 29, '1990 jimbk two feet, He said that this move complied with the five foot side yard setbacks but required lip a variance to the 20 foot front yard setback because the existing garage was only 10 feet from the front property line, Mr. Wheeler reviewed the four criteria for variances. He explained the hardship in the turning maneuver created by the location of the garage,noting that it had not been created by the current owner, He said that the proposed change would not change the appearance much but would improve the maneuverability and the traffic circulation generated from this site to Lakeview Blvd. He stated that the variance requested was the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the site for covered vehicle storage for two vehicles, l 1e said that the proposal complied with the applicable transportation policies through maintenance of the special street setback for Lakeview Blvd., and that it conflicted with no other polices. Mr.Wheeler said that the proposal complied with the solar access standard due to the wide right of way for both Lakeview Blvd. and the Southern Pacific railroad to the north, He said that staff recommended approval, AP_.LICANT Nawzad Otlnan. OTAK, explained that Don Schollander had not arrived yet and that he could answer any questions till he did so. He stated that he was in agreement with the staff report and asked if the Board had any questions, No one testified in favor of the application or opposed to it. 411) D A,IBERAT1Oh1 The Board concurred that the application was complete and that they were prepared to go forward with it without Mr. Schollander. Chair Foster closed the hearing for board deliberations, Mr, Greaves moved to Approve VAR 25-90 (aa-b)based upon the staff report and the applicant's submittal addressing adequately each of the four variance criteria. Ms. Remy seconded the motion, A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Sievert, Greaves, Foster, Remy, and Bloomer voting in favor, P1) 7-90/DR.16.90, a request by OTAK,Inc., for approval of a 12-lot planned development, A 12-slip boat dock with associated facilities is proposed as well, The site is located on the north side of Terrace Drive, between Terrace Drive and Oswego Lake, (Tax Lot 500 of Tax Map 21B'9). Chair Foster discussed the hearing procedures and timelines for testimony. He then asked for any ex parte contacts, bins or conflicts of interest, hearing none,he then opened the public hearing. Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 12 October 29, 1990 401 Hamid Pishvaie.Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He reviewed the exhibits received that night, Exhibits 21 through 24, Mr,Pishvaie explained that this was Et 12 lot planned development with a 12 slip boat dock and associated improvements of a deck, a shelter, a small storage building and a tramway (Exhibit 8), IIc said that the site was steep along the north portion along the lake; it had heavy tree cover and understory vegetation. Most public facilities were already available to it,though the applicant did propose to move a trunk line in order to gain Moro buildable space. Mr,Pishvaie stated that the project represented approximately 54%of the allowable density [22 lots were allowed under LOC 49,315(14)j, He explained that the 20,000 square foot lots were intended to maximize the protection of the existing natural features (trees and understory), He said that a Homeowners Association would have to be created because the applicant proposed a private open space on the portion of the lot that sloped in excess of 50%grade (between the top of the bank and the lake); the only improvements allowed within that area would be the boat clock and the train access from Terrace Drive, The Homeowners Association was necessary to insure maintenance and preservation of the open space;however, no bylaws had yet been submitted and that was a condition of approval. Mr Pishvaie reviewed the traffic report, The only issue mentioned was a site distance problem at the intersection of South Shore Blvd. and Palisades Road(a blind Curve) which could be corrected through trimming or trees,shrubbery and grass, 4111) Mr,Pishvaie said that the proposal met the requirement that no improvements except for boat houses be allowed within 25 feet of Oswego Lake, noting that the Lake Corporation submitted a letter approving the design (Exhibit 23) but asking for inclusion in the final design approval. Mr Pishvaie pointed out the condition requiring that the additional street lights to be provided on Terrace Drive be consistent with the current neighborhood lighting poles (town and country style). Mr. Plshvaie stated that the 3,06 acres of open space met the parks arid open space standard requiring 20%of the ground area as open space. He said that the applicant also proposed an open space for tree protection on all the walks(Exhibit 7), He pointed out that the building envelopes of Lots 1.6 encroached on the open space, He recommended that no building envelope encroach in that area and that a five foot buffer be established from the top of the bank to protect the cliffside, Mr. Pislavaie reviewed the drainage standard,noting that it was one of the issues raised by the Lake Corporation, He explained that a detention facility built on this site(as was normally required) would not be accessible by City maintenance crews because or the slope. A detention facility in the street would not work either because the site sloped away from the street. He said that staff recommended that no detention facility be provided. Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 12 October 29, 1990 Mr. Pishvaie stated that to address water quality the applicant was providing several 4111) manholes in Terrace Drive and two grasslined swales(Exhibit 9) that staff believed were adequate to address the issue, I-le noted the Lake Corporation's suggestion to include dry wells within the grass lined swales and recommended that an investigation of the possibility of dry wells (to be implemented if feasible or necessary) be added as a third item in condition 132. He explained that staff bad not included dry wells beetu►se the soils report indicated very shallow soil over bedrock, and dry wells might not be feasible; however, they might be possible in the grasslined swales, Mr.Pishvaic reviewed the utility standard, pointing out that all the utilities existed in Terrace Drive to which the applicant could connect, He said that the applicant was required to provide a half street improvement on Terrace Drive along their street frontage, He explained that after the City Engineer's review of the offsite portion of Terrace Drive, staff recommended that the applicant be required to improve the road to a minimum width of 20 feet with a four foot shoulder(it was currently 15 feet wide), Mr. Pishvaie said that staff wished to modify condition Del on p. 12. He explained that a half street improvement usually included curbs, gutters and sidewalks; however there was no room on the north side of Terrace Drive for such an improvement, He recommended that the applicant put two to three feet of gravel for a shoulder on the north side so that the public would not have to walk in the roadway. He reiterated his concern about the language requiring the applicant to provide a half street improvement since the topography of the site was not conducive to that, Mr. Pishvaie said that the applicant proposed a three pass alternative to deal with tree removal but as yet had not submitted a plan. lie recommended that the applicant be required to submit a final detailed plan prior to removing or pruning any trees and following an onsite investigation by the applicant and staff to identify which trees would be pruned or removed. Mr,Pishvaie said that the applicant was requesting exemption from the solar access ordinance due to the topography of the site and the extensive tree coverage, lie said that staff found that the application did provide for substantial compliance with applicable criteria and recommended approval, Mr.Pishvaie directed Chair Poster to Condition A.8 for the tree cutting requirements, Ms.Remy asked if the road was sufficient to support construction traffic, Mr. Pishvaie said that structurally the road was fine but the width was a concern. He said that while he thought the trucks could make the turn, he was concerned that cars would have to wait for the trucks to go by as the road was not wide enough to allow them to pass by each other. Ms. Remy commented that she understood the purpose of dry wells as curtailing water flow, not insuring water cleanliness. She asked how dry wells solved the water cleanliness problem. Mr.Pishvaie explained how the system addressed water quality through the road drainage to the two grasslined swales and the channeling of roof and foundation runoff through a pipe to till Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 12 October 29, 1990 a point of discharge on Lot 12 where it would then run through existing vegetation. He said that he didn't think that water quality was an issue and that the concern was the capacity to handle the amount of runoff. Ms, Remy cited the Lake Corporation's statement that the dry wells were intended to insure that only clean water reached the lake,and reiterated that she did not understand how dry wells were intended to do that, Mr. Pishvaie said that he could not answer that question, APPLICANT jlrt Hansen. OT K, reviewed the overall design of the project using graphics, He pointed out that the design placed the 12 houses along Terrace Drive at the top or the slope, preserved the treed open space along the lake, and provided 12 boat slips on the lake with a tram access down the slope, lie said that they were providing 3,06 acres of open space along the lake and a restricted tree preserve along the back of the slope with the intent to leave the bluff undisturbed with the exception of a small rocklined channel required to take storm water down to the lake, Mr. Hansen mentioned the condition on p. 11 in which staff suggested using 10 foot side yard setbacks. He said that they have worked with 7,5 foot side yard setbacks primarily because of the limited building area on the site, He asked that they be allowed the 7,5 foot side yard setbacks to give them the flexibility they needed to site the homes on this topographically challenging site with heavy tree cover. He said that he did not want to come back for a variance for each lot, I-le said that this request was also allowed in the planned development ordinance which required that the perimeter of the property meet the 10 foot side yard setbacks for an R-15 zone. He demonstrated on the graphic how they would maintain those setbacks where their property abutted an existing development. Mr,Hansen reviewed the two alternatives they were considering to allow driveway access for lots 8 and 9, noting the steep gradient. He said that he would prefer that the staff condition for an access easement for a common driveway(p. 10) be removed in case they decided to use separate driveways to access those lots. Mr, Hansen stated that they held an informal neighborhood meeting at their offices in September to which approximately 15 people came, He said that he thought their design had been well received, He noted that the issue of the offsite road improvements did come up, and presented a series of photographs showing the road, He said that they concurred with the neighbors that there was a safety problem there, Ile reviewed their solution to the problem that would not impact the character of the neighborhood by putting in a sidewalk and curb. He said that they proposed to widen the road to 20 feet by paving over the current ditch on the south side of the road. He noted that they could do this within the existing right of way, He pointed out that the road was a closed loop system with minimal traffic volumes, Mr, Hansen reviewed their storm drainage system in response to the Lake Corporation letter. He:said that they would be adding additional curb and pavement in the half street improvement to complete their street frontage along Terrace Drive, Hepointed out the two Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 12 October 29, 1990 pollution control manholes across the frontage of their site intended to pick up the street runoff and drain it to the grasslined swages which extended down to a perforated pipe that would be built near the top of the slope and run parallel to the lake until the water fell out into the rock channel that took the water down to the lake, He said that they were als+ concerned about water quality, and that he thought that they could arrive at a solution for the dry wells He noted during t some places bedrock ment of truction was only two flans eet down aat would nd explease ressed concernhe Lake ov Corporation, how much depth they could provide in a dry well system, Mr,Greaves asked how OTAK would coordinate with the Lake Corporation if the Board did not require a condition for dry wells, Mr. Hansen proposed that they coordinate with staff and the Lake Corporation to review their drawings prior to getting construction permits with a final review of the construction plans once they were completed. Chair Foster asked if the cross section submitted by OTAK was scaled both ways. Mr, Ilansen said that it was slightly exaggerated in the vertical but pointed out that the slopes were steep on both sides, He said that he thought a sidewalk with an attendant retaining wall would be difficult to implement. Chair Foster asked how far would the widening of the road to 20 feet over the existing drainage ditch go. Mr. Hansen said that it would go approximately 350 lineal feet but that. they had not yet surveyed that condition. Chair Foster noted that widening went on Terrace Drive to the curve area, Chair hai the top Fosterof askedd bang.if OTAK AK had a problem with the condition setting a;five foot setback 40 for Lots 1-6, Mr. Hansen said that he thought that would be prudent, especially to allow equipment to maneuver. Chair Foster asked if OTAK wanted the Board to case Condition A6,the requirement for driveway access, Mr. Hansen said that they wanted the condition eliminated, Mr,Bloomer asked for verification that the proposal to expand the existing 15 foot wide roadway to 20 feet wide would take up the entire usable portion of the ground, and require a retaining wall if a sidewalk were put in on the uphill side, Mr.Hansen said that was true, Mr.Bloomer asked what the cost of putting in a retaining wall and sidewalk would be, Mr, Hansen said they would have to get that information for him, Mr.Hansen stated that they have discussed with the City fixing this road since it was an issue prior to this application. He said that while they agreed it was sensible to fix the road while they had the equipment near the site, and that they were willing to work in collaboration with the City, they had not understood that they would be paying for ail of the improvement(as indicated in this new City condition). Ms. Remy asked how the driveways lit with the cut in the road, Mr. Hansen explained that the driveways were in areas with already existing homes and driveways, lie said that since Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 of 12 October 29, 1990 • they were doing the improvement on the uphill side of the road,they did not need to match 10 with existing driveways. Ms, Remy clarified that she wanted to know how they were going to build the houses on that steep a slope with such a narrow road, Mr, Hansen referred to'Exhibit 7, a 40 scale map thin showed their plans,, Chair Foster noted'01 AK request for a minimum 7.5 foot side yard setback, He suggested a side yard setback of a minimum of 7,5 feet with a total of 20 feet., Mr. I°lansen said that they had suggested something similar to staff but bad concluded that there was an enforcement problem because only the first builder on site would get the reduced setback. Chair Foster clarified that he meant adding the two side yard setbacks together for a total of 20 feet, not 20 feet between buildings, Mr. Pishvaie said that it was similar to the R-10 zoning requirement for a combination of 15 foot setbacks with a minimum of five feet, Mr Hansen agreed that a total of 20 feet with a minimum of7,5 feet was reasonable and, achieved the objective Mr, Greaves asked If there was a security system for the tram, Mr. Hansen said that the gate would be locked at the top with a key used solely by the owners. Mr, ()relives asked about security from the lake side, Ton,Hanunond. O AK',reviewed the security system for the tram. Ile explained that, in addition to the gate at the top, there was a key operated on call button, In response to Board questions,Mr. Hammond said that the line of night front the top was straight down and would allow riders to see if anybody was on the rail, l le said that he carefully investigated the safety features and was satisfied with them, it had a triple system of safety devices including a bumper. He stated that it would work in all weather,both winter and summer, He said that this was the system used by residents on Pudget Sound year round as their main or sole access to their homes. PROPONENTS Doge azr picriiar tiat►.for Ann Shukcart,stated that she believed this design of beautiful homes on large lots with open space would meet the high standards her aunt had for building in Lake Oswego, • stated that the Corporation has reviewed the product so fa OTAK's r, Hesaidpthat theyosal at appreciated the ength on a bBoard and staff concern for waterwither of oecasions and was satisfied quality, He said that they had OTAK's good faith promise to work towards a solution to give the utmost protection to water quality and that they did expect to review the final designs, Pon Burdick. Lake Corporation l7cveloazanent Iteyi ,concurred with Ms. Pierce's comments regarding Ann Shuknrt`s probable acceptance of this project. lie stated that the Lake Corporation Board reviewed the final presentation from OTAK at their last Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of 12 October 29, 1990 meeting and appreciated OTAK's responsiveness to their concerns, Ile said that the Board fe endorsed the project. He noted that their concerns had included the tree removal process, expressing satisfaction with the three pass system for identifying trees to be removed as a good way to preserve the views orthe lake through the trees and to retain the maximum advantage of the natural area. Mr. Burdick reported that there was a property line finalization along the lake shore currently under negotiations between the Lake Corporation and Ann Shukart`s representatives, Ho said that they have requested copies of the workingg drawings for the dock and the structures, noting that safety was their main concern. 1 k commented that they had been impressed with the idea of a tram versus a stairway, pointing out that the tram was subject to Oregon`s strict elevator code Ms, Remy asked for an explanation of the three pass system for tree removal, Mr, Hammond explained that he,Mr, Burdick, Andy I turris from the City and Bob Mazany,an arborist, had developed this system after looking at the site, He said that in the First pass, they would identify the dead or dangerous trees on the entire site that needed to be removed, On the second pass, they would review which trees on the embankment dints could be removed to open up views and which trees should be removed to produce is better environment for the smaller trees remaining, On the third pass,they would look at which trees on the embankment could be pruned to open up views, Gary Geddes,owner of the property ne,iUelot 1, stated that while he i ivored the project overall, he didn't favor 12 docks, C-1c expressed concern at tree cutting, noting the .� importance of'trees in preventing erosion on the hill. He expressed concern at pruning trees "' for views,pointing out that the trees were:so tall that the branches that would have to be pruned to allow a view were too high on the tree for pruning. Mr. Geddes noted the petition and letter submitted by his wife regarding the safety concerns about the road, He said that he thought the group would accept a 20 foot wide road, Chair Foster asked Mr, Geddes if he had any problem with a 7.5 foot setback from the property line. Mr Geddes stated that he would like it to be wider if possible. Chair Foster asked for testimony from those opposed, Hearing none, he asked for testimony for those who were neither in favor nor opposed. Hearing none, he called for rebuttal, >rRrHUTT Mr,Hansen presented a rough cost estimate for improving the road. Improving the 350 feet of street frontage would cost approximately $1 00 a foot for a total of$35,000, Adding a sidewalk�,// and a retaining wall would increase the cost closer to $200 per foot for a total of 0$70, 00. Mr. Groves ves asked for Mr, 1 lansen`s opinion regarding inclusion of a bylaw in the Homeowners Association preserving the three pass system as the tree maintenance program. Mr, Hansen said that they were open to that. He pointed out the City requirement that it be fopDevelopment Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 12 October 29, 1990 1, ♦ y noted on the plat that they had to go through the tree cutting permit process, He said that he {. thought including the methodology in the CC&Rs would be acceptable, d .1i Greaves asked if it was a fair statement to say that OTAK.was Mr, � � proposing to work with the City and the Lake Corporation to define a drainage system on a lot by lot basis,citing the difficulty with dry wells in shallow bedrock, Mr, Hansen said that they did not intend to ;` ' work on a lot by lot basis but that it was an issue he thought they could resolved when they got to tk . final plans. Mr. Greaves asked for clarification regarding the role of dry wells - were they designed for , M„ pollution control? Mr. Hansen said that the grasslined swales and the pollution control manholes were designed to address water quality, • Chair Foster asked if OTAK had a problem with a condition requiring a 10 foot setback from the southwest property line on Lot I. Mr♦ Hansen explained that they have already proposed 10 foot setbacks on the lots at both ends of the project, ` f STAFF QUESTIONS Chair Foster asked Mr, l.'ishvaie if there was a problem with eliminating the condition ; II regarding driveway access, Mr. Pishvaie said that there was no problem with doing that, , Chair Foster asked Mr. Pishvaie for his opinion regarding the side yard setbacks. Mr, y Pishvaie stated that he thought that the lots were wide enough to accommodate the 7.5 foot '� setback, He noted that Board precedents did exist for reducing the side yard setbacks, lie ♦ { thought that if the Board allowed the possibility of reduced setbacks, all the builders would ' use it because it allowed them to build bigger houses, He said that he thought a 20 foot combined setback with a 7♦5 foot minimum met the intent of the zone yet allowed flexibility w��� to the developer. t, Chair Foster asked if the applicant's proposal to widen the road to 20 feet was any different from staffs proposal. Mr, Pishvaie said that staffs proposal had included a four foot wide shoulder to provide pedestrians sonic place to walk other than in a travel lane. He said that r, t ', he has received many phone calls from people reporting that they ran for the intersection • ''' whenever they heard a car coming because there was no place to go on that road, Chair Foster asked for Mr. Pishvaie's opinion of the three pass system for tree removal, Mr, Pishvaie said that he thought it was a good idea, noting the condition that the applicant work ; closely with the city on this issue, BOARD` `< .' l� DELIBERATION Mr. Bloomer stated that he thought that the tree removal process was a good procedure, I-le , • concurred with changing the driveway access and the 7.5 foot minimum side yard setback with a 20 foot combined side yard setback, Ile said that he was concerned about providing a place for people to walk off the road but wasn't sure about requiring an additional sidewalk, • Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 of 12 October 29,. 1990 Ms. Remy said that she liked the three pass tree system and wanted to see it in the CC&Rs, 4110 She said that she did not see a need to widen the road beyond 20 feet nor did she have a problem with Chair Fester's suggestion regarding the side yard setbacks. She said that she was concerned about water cleanliness during construction, She said that she felt that the good faith statement by OTAK to work towards an acceptable solution for water quality in the finished product was correct, Chair Foster said that he concurred with Mr, Bloomer and Ms, Remy, though he felt that the drainage question was answered by the grassy swales, He concurred with the applicant working with staff on the dry wells and with his suggestion for a combined side yard setback of 20 feet with a minimum of 7.5 feet, He agreed that they should give the applicant the flexibility needed for the driveways. He said that he thought that the three pass tree system should be included in the CC&Rs, He said that he thought that a 20 foot pavement was sufficient without requiring a additional shoulder or sidewalk, he noted the impact of a sidewalk in cutting back the bank, Mr. Croaves stated that he thought staff andapplicant had done a good job, Ile the * suggested modifying Condition A9 to state specifically that the 13oard wanted the bylaws to lhiclude a system similar to the three pass tree system to preserve the character of the open space, He stated that he favored eliminate Condition A6 for the reasons stated previously, He concurred with Mr, Pishvaie's language on Condition 132, regarding"dry wells where possible" but suggested that they allow the applicant to work with staff to staffs approval to prevent this from coming back to the Board, and that they include language requiring a final review by the Lake Corporation, • Mr.Pishvaie suggested modifying Condition B12 to read "and submit final approval from the Lake Corporation regarding the final moorage plan and the drainage pht," Mr, Graves concurred, Mr. Carettves stated that he felt very strongly that they should allow the applicant flexibility regarding the side yard setbacks and concurred with Chair Foster's suggestion, He said he now leaned towards not requiring a sidewalk in addition to widening the road to 20 feet because of the cost factor and because there was no testimony in the record that there was a safety hazard for people using the road. He said that he thought widening the road would alleviate the concerns of pedestrians mentioned by staff, lie said that in terms of landscape architecture he thought that a sidewalk to complete the loop at the top would be appealing, but that the cost of a retaining wall was too onerous. Chair Foster noted that a retaining wall would cut into the bank, Mn Greaves pointed out that they had only the applicant's testimony that a retaining wall would be necessary. Mr. Sievert said that he thought that the 20 foot width would be sufficient in combination with the additional street lighting required. He asked for clarification on the side yard setback issue,asking if they had to specify that Lots 1 and 12 had to have a 10 foot setback instead of the 7.5 foot setback. Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 of 12 October 29 1990 Mr,Pishvaie explained that the applicant has already stated that Lots I and 12 would have 10 foot setbacks on either side, The Board discussed the condition, noting that it did not mean that Lots 1 and 12 would have a total setback of 17.5 feet, All the lots would have a total of 20 feet for their combined side yard setbacks; Lots 2 - 11 could have one side at a minimum of 7.5 feet and the other at a minimum of 12.5 feet while Lots 1 and 12 had to have a minimum of 10 feet on each side, Mr. Greaves moved for the approval of PD 7-90/DRI6-90 in accordance with the deliberations of the Board and the conditions of approval as suggested by staff and as modified by the Board, Mr. Sievert seconded the motion, A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Sievert,Greaves, Foster, Remy, and Bloomer voting in favor, VI. GENERAL PLANNING -None VI. OTHER BUSINESS Chair Poster announced the advertising of two positions on the Board his and Mr.Greaves' terms were up, though they could reapply. l•le said that this meant they would have to select a new chair, and noted that Ms.Remy, the current Vice Chair, stated she could not be chair due to business commitments, VII ADJOURNMENT Chair Poster adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p,m, Development Review Board Minutes Page 12 of 12 October 29, 1990 tf \\ i!A OD ip CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES October 15, 1990 L. CALL TO ORDER Chair Roberta, Foster called the regular Development Review Board meeting of October 15, 1990 to order at 7 30 p.m.in the City Council Chambers, II. , ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr,Foster,Ms. Remy,Mr,Bloomer,Mr, Stanaway, Mr, Starr and Mr. Sievert, 'Mr, Greaves was excused. Staff members present included llob Galante, Acting Planning Director; Mike Wheeler, Associate Planner; Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney;and Barbara Anderson, Senior Secretary. ill* APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS I3n1a Galante, Acting Planning Director, informed the Board that staff had received'a letter from Drew Davis withdrawing his request for SD 30-90/VAR 16.90, He said that there was not a specific time limitation on when someone who withdrew his application could reapply. 0 V, PUBLIC 111EAltING SD 3Q-90/VAR I0-9J(a-it), a request by Drew Davis for a land partition to create two lots, Since the site is a platted lot in the Village on the Lake planned development, this request is also a request to modify the approved planned development layout, The applicant is also requesting a 25 foot Class II Variance to the 25 foot lot frontage requirement[(DS 18.020(1))for proposed Parcel 2, The site is located et the east terminus of Twin Points Drive right of way(Lot 28,Block 4, Village on the Lake Subdivision),other described as Tax Lot 3900 of Tax Map 2 11 '9130 Supplemental, Continued from.Augttst 20J 990 and sgamallailltiahritsthatuk The applicant withdrew his application. ---..yr w M w..M--M M•..w - -w.4 r+....M- - - -.✓A w . r-:yr.«-.- Y .,r----r n-..4r- ♦ w M y*}l w-a M-n.r:M V x--- VAYt 17.90 (a-d),a request by Ed& Patrice Westphal for approval of the following variances) a) A 25 foot Crass 2 variance to the 25 foot required rear yard setback in an R-10 residential zone [LOC 48.215(1))y b) A 25 foot Class 2 variance to the 25'Oswego Lake Special Setback.[LOC 48.535(3)]; 41) Development Review Board Minutes Page 1 of 13 October 15, 1990 c) A 5' Class 2 variance to the 15'total required side yard setback in an l.h 10 residential tip zone [LOC 48,215(1)j; and, d) A 20,6°4 Class II (variance to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard which requires that at least 70% of the site remain free of structures and impervious surfaces, Only 49,4% of the site is proposed to remain free of such structures and surfaces. The site is located on Arrowhead Court, north of South Shore Blvd, (Tax Lot 800 of Tax Map 2 lE 8DD),Continued from October 15 1990, Chair Foster discussed the hearing procedures and timelines for testimony. He asked the board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Hearing none,he then opened the public hearing, Mike Wheeler, Associate Planner, presented the staff report written October 5, 1990. He pointed out that the Board heard this same request in 1989; the only change was in the percent of coverage of permeable surfaces and structures as noted in the hillside • protection/erosion control variance. He reviewed the specifics of the application to build a four story single family dwelling on the northerly half of the site with access from Arrowhead Court, Mr, Wheeler directed the Board to the staff report for the history of the application and the analysis of the application against the Comprehensive Plan polices and Zoning Code, He noted that the lot was smaller than the minimum zoning allowed but that it was granted an exception. He reviewed the variances, Mr, Wheeler stated that the applicant needed to resolve the dise►epancy in the representation of height between the verbal description of the site in Exhibit 5 with the pictorial depiction of the site on the topographic map in Exhibit 25, l•Ie said that because of the Class 2 variance staff evaluated the application against the major development standards, though it was exempt from the solar access standard because its grade was greater than 20%, Mr. Wheeler said that one condition of approval was to identify the location of trees on the site and to remove only those necessary to develop the site, Fic directed the Board to the variance criteria discussion in the staff report, pointing out that the site did appear to suffer a hardship because of the size(just short of 4000 square feet total), the grade (51% average), and the constraint of an access easement encompassing approximately half of the site. Mr. Wheeler stated that the proposed dwelling was not intended to adversely affect views from the neighboring properties and that the traffic impacts from a single family dwelling were inevitable and therefore the guidelines were not applicable, Mr. Wheeler directed the Board's attention to the applicant's narrative and graphic exhibits discussing what the applicant believed was required to make reasonable use of the property, He noted that the one deficiency staff found in the proposal with regard to this criteria was that while;the overall floor area of the dwelling has been reduced, no change has occurred to the degree of setbacks, He said that staff believed there were ways to reduce the degree of Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 of 1 October 15, 1990 variance of the side yard setbacks in order to make reasonable use of the property in order to h4; address concerns voiced by the neighbors. Mr. Wheeler stated that the variance requests were in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies they affected only if the requests were granted, He said that staff recommended denial of VAR 17-90 because it did not demonstrate that the proposal was not. injurious to the neighborhood or that the variances requested were those required to make minimum reasonable use of the property, In response to a question from Chair Foster, Mr. Wheeler reviewed the differences between this application and the one submitted a year ago, These included different graphics, a different design firm, an additional soils consultant, and a slightly lower percentage than requested before(49,4%)of the site to remain free of structures. In response to a question from Ms. Remy, Mr. Wheeler confirmed that the deck area did touch the rear setback(Ex, 25,29-31)at the property line at the lake, APPLICANT Patrice Westphal reviewed the changes made and the second opinions they solicited following the denial of their previous,application, She referred to the su;m rting data they accumulated to provide the burden of proof the Board said they were lacking on their first application in support of their request for variances. Ms. Westphal noted that the two car garage was small and reviewed the data gathered • regarding garage homes in the area(Ex. 41),commenting that the average number of garages for these homes Was 2.2, She said that the evidence demonstrated that without the setback variances they would have to delete rooms, all of which were snali and ordinary type rooms. She contended that this data demonstrated that they have asked for the minimum variances necessary to create a livable and reasonable comparable home,smaller than the average home on the lake, She reviewed the square footage and room sizes of the proposed building in comparison to the average square footage and room sizes of homes on the lake. Richard Allen, Ball Janie&Novak, representing the applicants, commented that this was a buildable lot, contrary to opponents' assertions that it was not; it has been taxed as a buildable lot and subdivided, He said that he agreed with the previous Board's decision that the applicants had not met the burden of proof for the variances. IIe reviewed a definition of reasonable use of properties on the lake: total square footage of the building and room.sizes, He contended that a small home on a small lot was not a reasonable use in this area; a 3000 square foot home would be a reasonable minimum,for lake front property, He reiterated that the room sizes proposed were much smaller than those in other homes on the lake, and that the building proposed was a reasonable use of the property, Mr. Allen reviewed the staff concerns regarding the garage and parking. He said that this used a narrow private access that did not allow on street parking; the applicants have chosen to provide four parking spaces,two inside the garage and two off street spaces, to address Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 13 October 15, 1990 Ask the parking concerns, He stated that a two car garage was not unreasonable, citing triple and IP two car garage homes on the lake, Mr.Allen reviewed the concerns about the impact of the proposed home on the view of the property to the west, He directed the Board to Exhibit 19, a graphic showing the site lines from the house to the west, and to a drawing by Mr, Stuckey showing how the view of that home would not be impacted by this building. Mr, Allen contended that this home did not injure the view of the home to the west except that the neighbors would be looking at a house not a park setting. Mr.Allen noted the concern raised at the prior hearing that the home was a disproportionate size to the lot. He referred to photos in Exhibits 8-22 showing the spacing of homes on lots in the area. He said that the Westphal's' property line was set back considerably in from the lake and therefore they would not end up with several large homes immediately abutting each other, He said that someone viewing the home from the lake, the only angle giving a sense of the overall mass of the house, would not be able to see any "cramming." He noted the trees partially screening the home, In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Allen said that the homes they were using for comparisons where those currently on the market and found in the multiple listings, Ms, Westphal explained that those shown in Exhibits 7 -22 Exhibits were not for sale; she took a random sampling from the neighborhood and found the lot sizes information at the county. PROPONENTS Mike Barclay, Mike Barclay Assoc,, pointed out they were requesting a five foot setback on the right side because of the configuration of the lot(Exhibit 25), l°ie said that while the setback to the deck was zero, the setback to the building line was significantly more than zero. He said that they did not agree that they could meet both requirements for a 25 foot rear yard setback and the minimum two car off street parking spaces, He stated that Westphal's had requested him to design a minimum room sized residence that would be harmonious, given the conditions of the site and the site constraints with respect to the topography and so forth. He agreed that the room sizes were significantly below standard for this area. He noted that a disparity existed between the homes built today and used homes on the market, In response to a questions from Ms.Remy,Mr. Barclay reviewed the locations of the building line, deck line and roof line, Ile said that in this area, optional rooms such as a family room, a rce room and a den were included in the standards for a minimum house; this design did not include a second eating area, Ms. Westphal noted that there was no rec room (Cx.28-31). Chair poster asked if the applicant had considered putting the garage on the other side of the street, Mr, Barclay said that it was an attached garage, and that the easement encompassed the entire south half of the lot. They could technically not have visitor parking on the easement. CIO Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 13 October 15, 1990 Win Stuckey,Winfred Stuckey Engineers,Newberg, stated that his sketch for the IF proposed Westphal property was as accurate as he could make it from the design by Larry Mentrum;'however the more recent design was smaller and therefore his sketch was conservative. He said that for the Coghill property, the figures shown were based on calculations from triangulating the corner of the Coghill house. 1 Mr. Stuckey stated that another hardship occurred when lots of record were subjected to increasingly restrictive ordinances. He reviewed the process used by the Y`tunhill Planning; Commission to deal with nonconforming lots through grandfather clauses and the conditional use permit process seeking variances. He said that they had felt that the purpose of modern ordinances was not to disenfranchise senior properties but to control the development of new properties from that time forward, Mr. Stuckey referred to the sketch he drew to elucidate the question of the neighbors view of the lake and its amenities, He said that he thought that Mr. Coghill had more to fear of view obstruction from the future development of Tax Lot 700 than from the Westphal's` proposed home. In response to a question from Mr, Stanaway, Mr, Stuckey clarified that the 14 feet from the north on his drawing was to the building itself, not the decks, Lowell Patton, owner along with George Carbone of the lot in question, referred to his letter to the DRB regarding the financial hardship that he would be placed under if this request were denied,. He entered into evidence a sketch of the property showing the location di of the trees,noting which would be likely removed,and pointing out that the cedar tree in ler the front yard would be saved. He reviewed the view lines from the various houses,using a plat on which the various houses were drawn to show how the Westphal house might affect the view from the adjacent properties, x f NENT5 Ralph Dwire, Arrowhead Court, presented several slides showing the site,the roadway, the neighboring houses, the location of utilities, the hillside and erosion from the hillside drainage, He said that he objected to the construction of a building, given the constraints of the site, Mr. Wheeler requested that Mr, Dwire submit into evidence prints from the five slides, Kim Linville, owner of Lot 700, stated that Tax Lot 800 was not a buildable lot, lie presented the history of the site(based on research at the County) and using graphics as proof that it was never intended to be a buildable lot. Mr. Linville said that in June 1927 the platting for Lakeview Villas used private zoning districts; this lot(which included Tax Lot 800)was in the Lake Grove Zoning District, He said that the Lake Oswego zoning distracts were amended in 1933. On June 3, 1959,this whole area was annexed to the City, with zoning its place that affected this lot. In 1947, this was lot 556, Dr,_Denton and Katherine Reese purchased Lot 556 on May 15, 1953,creating 4.1 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 13 Ootober 15, 1990 an easement on July 10, 1953 (which became Arrowhead Court)that crossed the Wilson's' Iv property. Another easement was created on March 25, 1955 to service other lots that would be created, In 1953, the zone was R-8 with the other areas as R..15 Mr. Linville said that when the Reeses developed the property, they sold off the other parcels and created the 3980 square foot easement to create a lake access for Lots 1800 and 1700 which were substandard lots, He pointed out that all the other lots in the area were from 20,000 to 44,000 square feet with the lots in the Lakeview Villas running anywhere from 9500 square feet up to 18,000 square feet. He said that in plat.556 in the Lakeview Villas, lot 800 was 3980 square feet, lot 900 was 10000 sq, ft,, lot 1000 (Dwire)was 11,000 sq. ft.-and lot 1100 (Patton)was 9000 sq, ft Mr. Linville said that in 1961, Mr, Carbone purchased this lot for a half interest. On December 1, 1966, Mr. P atton purchased this lot, with the understanding that the contract included these two. Then in 1986, these two parcels were deeded separately as an assignment of contract to Deborah Frances. He said that Mr. Patton told Catherine Reese that the deed created for these properties was incorrect and he asked her to sign two deeds, one for each lot. That created an illegal partition for this lot, He reiterated that Tax Lot 800 was not a buildable lot when it was created, Chair Foster asked when Tax Lot 800 became a tax lot on its own, Mr, Linville said that it was created as an easement for the two parcels that held half►nterests in it (TL 1800 and 1700 owned by Carbone and Patton), He stated that it became separated out as a lot in 1989 when Mr. Patton asked Catherine Reese to sign a separate warranty deed for it, Max Miller, Mk attorney representing the neighbors, stated that the lot was never divided off. Mr, wr Linville said that the owners who bought under the understanding that it was an easement still owned the adjacent properties today. Mr, Linville stated that Catherine Reese was willing to testify as to what occurred. Mr. Allen said that they would evaluate the evidence presented by Mr. Linville, Mr, Galante stated that this information was not available at the time of the first application because staff could not do this level of research, Mr, Linville did an extensive records search at the County, He said that just because someone was paying taxes on land didn't mean that the land was a legal buildable lot, He recommended going on with the hearing to allow the applicant to review the evidence for rebuttal, Max Miller,Tonkin Law Firm, representing the Coghills and Ms. Norris, said that he could provide an affidavit at a later time from Mrs, Reese, the original owner of the lots, He stated that this information was intended to rebut Mr. Stuckey's contention that this lot has had more restrictions placed on it as time went by, He said that when the "lot" was created in the 1950s it was subject to the 8000 sq, II, minimum zone and therefore was not a buildable lot at that time. It should not be a buildable lot now, Even if it were,it should be subject to all the other applicable zoning restrictions, ipDevelopment Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 13 October 15, 1990 Mr. Miller stated that the zoning for some of the houses cited by Mr, Allen as large houses ip on lots less than 10,000 sq, ft. were zoned R-7.5. He reviewed errors in proportions between actual lots in the materials presented by Ms,Westphal (Ex„ 8, 10, 11, 13), Mr. Miller addressed the issue of hardship, He said that the applicants were contending that they should be able to build a house like the other houses on the lake, even though their lot was much smaller, He stated that under Oregon law, if you have an economic use of the property, then you did not have a hardship. He contended that if they could not build a house on this lot,it was not a hardship because it was never intended to be a buildable lot but rather an easement;the easement granted economic value to the current owners of the house and to the owners of Lots 1700 and 1800 because it gave access to ti lake,the boat dock, and the potential stairway, Mr.Miller pointed out that under the zoning provision 9-90 currently under review by the City Council, none of the road easement could be included in the assessment of the buildable portion of this lots Mr. Miller commented on the soils analysis report and slide potential on the site. He said that it was the experience of the people around the lake that soundings did not provide an accurate assessment of slide potential, He contended that if the owners built out close to the lot line, they were creating a hazard on the adjoining parcels. Chair Foster pointed out that the Board had to evaluate each case on the laws in effect at the time of application, not on any new laws under review, SO Mr. Coghill,west property owner, referred to his three prior testimonials before the DRi3 on this proposal. He stated that he opposed the project as it was presented, contending that it was too large a house for the size of the lot, He said that it would adversely affect his lot through view site lines, diminished solar access and slide potential. He stated that the road was presently sinking; the property owners were in discussion as to how to fix it. He held that the lot has not been assessed as a buildable lot because its 4000 square feet was appraised at only $25,000 while his 10,000 square foot lot was appraised at$250,000. Don Burdick, Lake Corporation,Development Committee, stated that there has been to his knowledge no consultation by the applicant with the Lake Corporation regarding development along their shore line, as was customary. He said that they have not talked to the applicant, He commented that if the history was correct, the lot might also not have a lake privilege; they would investigate that. He stated that the Corporation was opposed to the size and setbacks of the project. He stated that some of large homes around the lake cited as examples of what the applicant should be allowed were some of the worst examples of infringement on what the Lake Corporation was trying to maintain, Mr, Burdick noted that there was no fire turn around at the bottom of the road(as was required when the fourth house went in) and asked if the fire marshal has been consulted, Mr, Burdick said that the large houses shown were atypical of the houses around the lake; the large houses were on large lots. He said that the Corporation believed that the size of the 4. Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 of 13 October 15, 1990 lot was relevant to the size of the house and supported small houses on small lots, Be said that410 'very few people had four parking'spaces, and that the Corporation fount the idea of lour ofF'street parking spaces disagreeable. He said that a zero setback from their property line up four floors was not appealing and that he did not know of any other situations around the lake where that condition existed, Mr,Burdick said that they were not aware that a warranty deed was not issued until 1989, and that they would investigate in their own records, Charles Borgo, Lake Corporation,noted that this area has been known to have had previous landslides and stated that they opposed the project because of the strong possibility of potential landslide damage to the properties and the ultimate depositing of soil and rock into the lake, Ile said that Mr, Stuckey report gave the impression of,saying that they would find out what was there and then deal with it, Mr. Borgo said that the Corporation was concerned about the substantial variance on the maximums of impermeable surfaces the applicant was requesting. He said that the 20% variance would have the effect of taking as much storm water off this lot as possible and pushing it into the lake, They were concerned about water quality; he noted the lack of discussion in the documents about storm drainage design. Mr, Galante commented that the applicant might wish time to review the new material presented,as staff did. 410 Mr. Allen stated that the applicants were not prepared to rebut at this time, Mr. Galante said that staff needed to find out if th,s was a legally created lot;if it was not, there was nothing in the City procedures to make it legal, He said that it it was legal,then the board could continue but if it was not legal, staff would recommend denial on the basis that it was different than the material before the Board. Chair Foster asked Ms. Phillips for a recommendation on procedure, Ms, Phillips recommended leaving the hearing open solely for rebuttal and staff review of the matter presented by Mr, Linville and Mr, Miller, Ms Remy requested the staff to look again at the technical reports submitted, stating that she has some questions on the criteria. Mr. Starr moved to continue 'VARTh90(a-dl to October 29, t990 for applicant's rebuttal and staff interpretation of Mr. Linville and Mr.Miller's evidence that was submitted in opposition to the application and soils report. Mr. Stanaway seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Sievert,Mr, Stanaway,Mr Foster,Ms, Remy,M...Starr and Mr. l3loorner voting in favor, r•r ir..a-jr ir.+4'M n.#r r r-.•-Y n.r rt r.:+p.r♦tl'.r ar..r+r Y.M:'x-rr.#' ♦4- -M y Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of 13 October 15, 1990 1 i 2 filic R 172Q,a request by Laura Migliori for approval to add 390 sq, II, to an existing two-story house(converted to office use). The house is on the Historic Landmark Designation List, The site is located at 15.100 SW I3oones Ferry Road, (Tax Lot 300,403, 404 of Tax Map 2 1 F 813A), Chair Foster discussed the hearing procedures and timelines for testimony. He asked the board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none,he then opened the public hearing. Catherine Clark,Associate Planner, presented the staff report written October 5, 1990. She reviewed the alterations proposed for this two story office building historical landmark. She noted the new landscaping, including a garden space over a filled in swimming pool, She reviewed the location of the site within the Springbroak Creek Office campus located at the corner of Boones Ferry and Spring Lane, Ms. Clark said that the request for a minor partition was under administrative review concurrent with this application, She reviewed the parking requirements for the site,noting that the applicant proposed to meet the parking deficit by applying the pedestrian and transit IL parking reduction formula and providing the one new parking space and bus shelter required. She noted that Tri-Met was currently studying potential shelter locations and might consider siting one at the existing bus stop on Boones Ferry but that the applicant was willing to provide a private bus shelter if necessary. Ms, Clark reviewed the issue of historic compatibility, noting the criteria of the new dik ordinance. She stated that the applicant had done a good job of describing how all the relevant criteria has been met and depicting the proposed changes in exhibits ofbelbre and after elevations. Ms.Clark used a slide show to describe the history of the building and where the changes were proposed, She noted that this was the George Carl House or Old Postmaster's House;it was built in 1925 in the Colonial Revival style. She said that the proposed alterations were compatible with the colonial building style, were located on sides with low public visibility, and would not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the landmark, Ms,Clark recommended approval of the application with the six conditions listed on page 9, which she reviewed. Mr, Stanaway asked if the wood casements on the window would be a removable grill type or the type with individual panes. Ms. Clark said that perhaps the architect could answer that question. Mr.Bloomer asked how the Historic Review Board worked in the process. Ms. Clark said that generally the HRB only reviewed projects that staff specifically referred to them, they mostly looked at designating sites and removal of designation petitions, 40 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 1 October 1 5, 1990 • APPLICANT Laura Migliori,architect, reviewed her client, Joan Cady's, request to add 390 square feet to the building in a design compatible with the existing building. She saki that they were interested in preserving the character and the quality of the building and were comfortable , ,*ICJ with the staff, reeommendat►ons,and conditions, ,; ° ••' Mr, Stanaway asked Ms, Migliori to comment on the Historic Preservation Ordinance provision stating that the benefit to the community of allowing an alteration had to outweigh ",' r �' the benefit to the community of preserving the resottrcc, ' Ms, Migliori stated that presently the back yard was unused space which, if used, would ' increase the value and use of the building. She said that it seemed like a reasonable thing to ' * do, fi M Mr. Bloomer asked if the windows would be inserts, Ms. Migliori said that they were \ "' assuming that they would be wood windows with removable grills to match the work that ;- was done on the building 10 years ago. •` Rn`j Mr. Sievert asked bow long the building has been on the landmark designation list, Staff said that 1990 was a good estimate, Ms, Migliori said that she tutderstoctcl that it was a new •• "a designation, and that the owner had not understood that she would have to go through this process to get an addition,though they respected the community's attempt to preserve historical buildings, Joni Cady, owner, said that when she bought thebuilding in June she had not been informed that it was on the historic list, she found out about it because.she was interested in � '•.• preserving the building. ,;l,' Chair Foster asked for testimony in favor of the application, opposed to the application and neither in favor nor opposed to the application. Hearing none, he closed the hearing to ) public testimony for 13ottrd deliberation. J3OAI;D J)E1,IBBERATION S i '' •. Mr,Sievert said that it was nice to see someone not opposing their designation as an historic ` building. He said that he thought this was exactly what the ordinance meant. to preserve :, the landmarks while allowing them to have different uses, He said that the architect has •s been sensitive to keeping the style of the building. He said that the only concern he had was that the trellis in the back could be somewhat incompatible if not handled right. Mr, Stanaway concurred with Mr, Sievert's comments. He said that his only concern was ;, using the removable type of windows and doors used previously. He stated that he hoped .;,;, ,t the architect and owner would be more true to the original design and integrity of the ' building and use an actual separated window treatment. Pp ; Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 of 1 October 15, 1990 i{' Ms, Remy said that she thought it looked like a fine improvement. She concurred with all the recommendation of staff, Mr. Starr s aidi;that he concurred with Ms. Remy, Mr. Bloomer said that he agreed with all the comments made and that it was a nice addition to the space within;the spirit of the building. Chair luster said that he concurred with all the comments also. Ms, Remy moved for approval DR 12-90/1111 17- 0 in accordance with the staff report and the deliberations of the Board, Mr, Starr seconded the motion and it motion passe with Mr, Sievert, Mr. Stanawa , Mr.Foster, M .Remy, Mr.Starr and Mr, bloomer voting in favor, r n w r _• M g r w a M r.r _ M w w ►P w r W M _w.,w_n n h w.M M - w -r 4 P A'.* n w w N.r r M N.r n r M r:eve a M a*- -. Y' R 23.90(aJ ,n request by Marilyn and Michael Terry for approval or two variances as follows: a) A 24 foot Class 2 variance to the 25 foot rear yard setback required in an Rr7,5 Residential zone [LOC 48,215(1)); and b) A 24 foot Class 2 variance to the 25 foot Oswego Lake special setback (I,OC • 48,535(3)). The variances are requested to legalize portions of the existing stiuctore and to allow the construction of a new bedroom under an existing deck. The site is located at 4357 South Shore Blvd, (Tax Lot 9200 of Tax Map 2 FP,8CCC), Chair Foster discussed the hearing procedures and.timelines for testimony, no asked the board members if there were any ex parte contacts v;conflicts of interest, hearing none,he then opened the public hearing, Mr. Galante presented the staff report written October 5, 1990, He said that the existing residence was built in 1986 over an old foundation relying on an interpretation of the Planning Director at the time, Ile said that the interpretation was not surficient to allow compliance with the present code, and therefore the applicant was applying for a variance to build a bedroom underneath the existing deck., He said that the applicant was not proposing to do anything to alter substantially the appearance of the house nor extend the building footprint. 4-1c stated that staff recommended approval. APPLiC Marilyn Terry stated that when they purchased the house in 1990 they were told that it had been built to coder She said that it was a lovely home but short on bedroom space which they needed with two young children, She said that they used the original architect so that Igo Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 of 13 October 15, 1994 the addition would be in the same style as the home, She reviewed the specifies of the lip addition, She said that she had gotten approval from their neighbors on both sides,and the Lake Corporation, Chair Foster asked if they tried to put the bedroom anywhere else on the house, Ms,Terry said that they had not wanted to go outside the existing footprint and that there wasn't enough land to expand without encroaching further on the lake rights, Chair Foster asked for testimony in favor of the application, opposed to the application and neither in favor nor opposed to the application, Hearing none, he closed the hearing to public testimony for Board deliberation, BOARD 1)ELIBERATION Chair roster said that he thought this was a_reasonable use of the land with the variance required minimal. Mr, Starr moved for mpproy of_VAR 23-400-1)), Mr, Bloomer seconded the motion and it passed with Mr Sievert,Mr, Stanaway,Mr,Foster, Ms, Reilly, Mr, Starr and Mr, Bloomer voting in favor, w r 1 r."M w-M..M w- r • M w r.w w r r r w:w r�.r 1,r r -:.r;r - 1 M.w r Y s w r w r r.r r M r„:,,w.r w.r r VAR 25-90 (a-b1, a request by Sehollander Development for two variances as follows: 4111) a) A 15 ft Class 2 variance to tl:e 20;ft front yard setback required in an R.-7,5 Residential zone [LOC 48,215(1)); and b) A Class 2 variance to the restrictions placed on nonconforming structures, which do not allow for any increase in the nonconformity of said structure[LOC 48,700 (2)(b)and (3)). The site is located at 3531 Lakeview Blvd., Tax Lot 2801 of Tax.Map 2 1 13 8, Ms. Remy moved to gontinuc VAR 25-90 ( to October 29,1990, Mr, Sievert seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert, Mr. Stanaway, Mr, Foster, Ms, Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr.Bloomer voting in favor, 1'D 7-90/D1116-90, a request by OTAK, Inc., for approval of a 12-lot planned development, A 12-slip boat dock with associated facilities is proposed as well, The site is located on the north side of Terrace Drive, between Terrace Drive and Oswego Lake, (Tax Lot 500 of Tax Map 21B9), dik Development Review Board Minutes Page 12 of 13 October 1.5, 1990 Ms.'Remy moved to continue 'D 1 QI (0.0.3 . Mr, Starr seconded 140 the motion and it passed with Mr.Sievert,Mr. Stanaway,Mr. Foster, Ms, Remy,Mr. Starr and Mr,Bloomer voting in favor. VI. GENERAL PLANNING Mr. Galante directed the Board's attention to the street name change requested by Hamid, Pislavaie in his memo. He said that staff checked with the emergency services people to see if there were any duplicate names with existng streets and found none. Ms. Remy moved to approve SC 39.90 a street mime change in South Shore Summit from Bradley Court to Scott Court, Mr, Stanaway seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Sievert, Mr, Stanaway,Mr, Foster,Ms, Remy,Mr, Starr and Mr. Bloomer voting in favor, Ms,:Remy asked for an update on the signs at Howard,lohnson's and at Stanford, Mr. Galante said that the signs at I Iowaard )ohnson's were changed but that the signs at Stanford were approved oy the County. Chair Foster nominated Norm Sievert as the IDItU representative to thel aatlaway Hearings t r Sievert r i � ► � Body meeting on October 23, 1990, Ms. Remy seconded the motion, A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, VI. °►TITER BUSINESS w Findings,Conclusions and Order • VAR 21+-90(aa-d)..Olson Group Architects Ms.Remy moved to approy'e'VA1UI-9i(i-d)And p23,Findings*Conckatshrn.and Order as corrected. Mr. Stanaway seconded the motion, A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Sievert,Staanaway, l<oster, Remy and Starr voting in favor; Bloomer abstained, S 38-9OIVAIt 22.90-Witmer Ms. Stanaway moved to �� wa 4 . r tstg1C nQ corxe1ed.‘ Ms. Remy seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Sievert, Stanaway, Foster, Remy and Starr voting in favor;Bloomer abstained, VI.I. ADJOURNMENT Chair poster adjourned the meeting at 1 O:4O p.m, Development Review Board Minutes Page 13 of 1 October 15, 1994 Atio-„.' CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES MONDAY,Y,OCTOBER it 1990 Ili I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of October I, 1990 was called to order by Chairman Foster at 7;30 p.m. IL ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr. Foster, Mr,Oreaves,Ms, Remy,Mr. Stanaway and Mr, Starr, Mr. Bloomer and Mr. Sievert were excused, Also present were Robert Galante, Acting Pltanninq Director; Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner, Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney; and Barbara Anderson,Secretary, III, APPROVAL OE MTN'UTL,'S Mr. Starr moved ror approval or the; t 94,199f)lylinu es. Mr. Stanaway seconded and the motion passed with Mr, Stanaway, Mr.Greaves, Mr,'Foster, Ms. ita Remy and Mr. Starr all voting yes. Mr. Greaves moved for approval or the Mny 7a.19,. Miiuttes. Mr.Starr seconded and the motion passed with Mr, Stanaway, Mr, Greavcs, Mr,Foster, Ms, Reiny and Mr. 1 Starr all voting yes. IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUN1CA`i'i()NS Mr.Wheeler explained to the Development Review Board that the next two agendas were over burdened with items that had been scheduled and continued rrom other agendas, The Board agreed that a special meeting on Monday,October 29, 1990 would be appropriate. Vk GENERAL.PLANNING V. PUBLIC h EARI'N( q-'; ,it request by Dennis E.'Eastman, Engineer for approval to upgrade the existing service station, which requires a Class II variance to the Access Standard and a Class I variance to the 25' setback requirement, The site is located at 180 N. State Street (Tax Lots 1600& 1700 of Tax Map 2 t E 3DA), ;Cont%tittt slant e43, az DRl3 Minutes 10/1/90 Pagel or 7 Barbara,Anderson informed the Board that the applicant had submitted a letter for continuance on this item. The Board decided that due to the number of items on the next two agendas that this item should be continued to November 19, 1990, Ms. Remy moved for continuance of DJL2-90/VAR 5-90 ht:,-J4 to November 194 1990. Mr. Starr seconded and the motion passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr, Greaves, Mr. Foster, Ms. Remy and Mr, Starr all voting yes. SD 55-59, a request by Kenneth Hoag for approval of a 4 lot subdivision. The property is located between Cornell Street and Cornell Court approximately 800 feet north of Bergis Road, otherwise described as Tax Lot 2400&3000 of Tax Map 2 lE 1 S13A, DR 11:M, a request by Northland Homes Inc. for approval of a 4 unit condominium project. The site is located north of Cervantes (Tax Lot 12 of Tax Map 2 11? 15131P), Chairman Foster noted that SD 55-89 and DR 11-90 had been postponed, Staff stated that these two items would be renoticed when the applications were determined to be complete, , __ARiJ `?W.aAj,a request by Olson Group Architects,AIA for approval of four variances as follows; a) A 21 foot Class 2 variance to the 25 foot rear , cal setback required in an R-10 Residential zone I LOC 48,215(1)1 b) A 21 foot Class 2 variance to the 25 foot Oswego Lake Special Setback. [LOC 48.535(3)1; c) A 14.71 foot Class 2 variance to the 20 foot front yard setback,required in an R-10 Residential zone [LOC 48,215(1)]; and d) A Class 2 variance to the restrictions placed on nonconforming structures, which do not allow for alterations to enlarge, expand or reconstruct the use or structure 1LOC' 48.700(2)(b); LOC 48.700(3)]. The site is located at 1308 North Shore Road (Tax Lot 8400 of Tax Map 211 IOBB), Chairman Foster asked if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he discussed the hearing timelines and procedures, Mr. Foster then asked for a staff report. Michael Wheeler discussed the background of the site. He explained that at one time the site involved the ownership of two contiguous lots,Tax Lots 8300 and 8400. Mr. Wheeler discussed the similar circumstances regarding another City case, Cl 1-90, He explained how the Planning Commission had determined that Code requirements in effect at the time that property was divided, prior to any partitioning approval process in effect DRB Minutes 10/1/90 Page 2 of 7 since 1975,required compliance with ase Zoning Code in effect et that specific time, Mr, Wheeler explained that for case VAR 21-90(a-d), in 1984 when Tax tot 8300 was conveyed, it reduced the lot depth to something below 100 feet,which wits required at the time, The staff report was prepared with information diet was iavtailaable sit the time keeping in mind that some decision would be handed down from the Planning Commission, Mr,Wheeler noted that it was now the Board's option to either proceed with the hearing or dismiss the ease, ; Chairman Foster asked for advice from Cynthia Phillips,Deputy City Attorney, Ms. Phillips stated that her recommendation was to postpone this ease until a final decision was made by the Planning Commission. The decision of the Planning Commission on Cl 1-90 had not been officially adopted yet and the appeal period had not begun. The Board asked if the Planning Commission's decision could be reduced to mean that the site being considered for VAR 21-90 was not a buildable lot,even though there was it building on the lot, Staffstated that the lot could be determined to be unbuildable, however, if any portion of the residence was ever destroyed it could not be reconstructed. Ms, Phillips noted that the building was not a nonconforming use because the lot was illegal. The Board questioned staff about whether or not to proceed with the hearing, Ms, Phillips stated that the staff report was written based upon the Planning Director's interpretation; however,since that time the Planning Commission has overturned the interpretation. Her suggestion was to postpone the case for a number of reasons. Chairman foster asked the applicant to comae forward to assist the Board to determine whether or not the application should go forward,be postponed or be withdrawn. 11Qint.Of Oros, RainhA. J x Quota i tp AtVhiti4i stated that the applicant feat strongly about } having the application heard at this bore:, 'rho applicant has wailed eight weeks for the hearing, has completed a full application and feels the right to be heard, Chairman Foster asked staff to proceed with the presentation. Mr, Wheeler went on to explain the applicant's requc it for variances, Mr. Wheeler concluded that staff now recommends denial of the request based on the Planning Commission's action regarding application of the Code in effect then and now. Also, Mr. Wheeler recommended that the Board should take notice of the Planning Commission's official action, Chairman Foster stated that Board was taking official notice of the Planning Commission's decision, APIgitent it ' .. , ieriitrS t .. oak gezego,, ! stated that he was the owner of the site in question. He recently purchased the property froira'William leeden, who had lived there for 21 years, Mr.O'Connor discussed the history of Inc property, explaining that the house was built in 1959, In 1964 the house was sold to another party, The Lake Corporation had approached the first owner in the time of the sale about the purchase of property under water. The owner conveyed what he thought was the underwater portion of the property to the Lake Corpora,°ton intending to sell the remainder to the purchaser. The consideration was$10.00. Since the house was built the " t > entire working part of the lot has been 10,000 square feet. An error was recorded on the ORB Minutes 10/1/90 Page 3 of ..,,. deed giving more land to the Lake Corporation than had been agreed.upon. Mr, llccdert (the purchaser) thought he owned all of the land above the water and has used the � property in that manner. if Mr.I3eeden had known about the error it would have easily been corrected, because the intent was to only sell that portion underwater. Mr. O'Connor stated that he had approached the Lake Corporation about purchasing that amount back, The Lake Corporation's committee answered back that they do not sell; property or reconvey, however, they would be supportive of the variance request, Mr, O'Connor expressed his opinion that the circumstances between the Planning Commission case file CI 1-90 and his own were entirely different. The history of`the site and the use of the site make it different, Mr. O'Connor stated that there was in fact 10,000 square feet available for use, No part of the existing house and/or no part of`the proposed house is on property owned by the Lake Corporation, Mr,O'Connor noted that the Planning Commission acted on the.Cl 1-90 case file which had two neighbors that were greatly opposed to development. He stated that his neighbors were opposed to his home remaining unattractive, Mr.O'Connor explained his reasons for proposing to demolish the existing house. He discussed his meetings with the City resulting in the proposal before the Board, Mr, O'Connor stated that the Planning Director had interpreted the lot to be buildable and his case was different from the one before the Planning Commission, Mr. O'Connor stated that because of the Phoning Commission's decision, he would be left unable to remodel or even rebuild if it should burn down and with a home that resulted in underutilization of the land, The board asked Mr, O'Connor if it was his intent to convert the dwelling into a duplex in the future because of the floor plan. Mr. O'Connor stated no,explaining that all bedrooms were going to be downstairs and the bedroom that was upstairs was now going to be a den, He explained that the downstairs would have a refrigerator and ice machine, f The upstairs would have a full kitchen facility, Ralph QlsDtrt,. sottGr uP.Ateltii asp,17 ISISA UPPsI liga a:t tr.,i o , Purhanu..2222,4 reiterated the steps that Mr.Olson had been through with the City on the proposal. He stated that the applicant first tried to remodel the house, but the existing house on today's market was considered a disaster. Thirty years ago it was quite adequate, The house does not fit the neighborhood and the neighbors are not pleased with it. Mr, Olson stated that something compatible with the neighborhood both in size and appearance could be better achieved if the house was demolished and rebuilt from scratch, lie stated that the average size of homes in the neighborhood was 4,000 sq, ft, and the proposed home would be 4,200 sq, ft. The footprint of the proposed home and the footprint of the existing home are basically the same size, lie stated that there has been a conscious effort to pull the house back from North Shore Drive, The house itself would be in compliance; however, the garage would require a variance.. Mr. Olson submitted Exhibit 18,corrections to drawings already contained in the proposal regarding decks. He stated that adequate information was contained in the narrative to address the need for the variances and the project was acceptable to the neighborhood. Based on that, Mr.Olson felt that project should be approved. The Board questioned Mr.Olson about the decks. Mr.Olson explained the deck was on the upper level and:one continuous deck, The Board asked about the deck on the lower levels Mr. Olson stated that the deck(an open air cabana) had been there since the construction of the existing dwelling, The applicant had intended to leave it in the existing condition. The Board discussed the possibility of a scheme that would eliminate the need for a front yard setback variance. Mr. Olson explained that the possibility of doing something dift rent with the garage was explored;however, the only options seemed to be on the DRS Minutes 10/1/90 Page 4of'1 east side of the property,placing the garage on the upper level and that became very difficult to do, Chairman Foster asked for testimony from persons opposed to the project. Hearing none, he asked for testimony from persons in favor. Hearing none, he closed the hearing. Mr, Wheeler stated that he would like to noted that Exhibit 7 shows 4.4 feet of Mr, O'Connor's property encroaching onto the Lake Corporation property. Mr. O'Connor explained that when the property was first drawn, there was no reference to the 5' additional setback for the road, There were two "excepts" added to the legal description of the property. The legal description was worded incorrectly to ""except" out that portion of property. He stated that it could be demonstrated that be owned the property, He stated that some of the same errors resulted in the incorrect amount owned by the Lake Corporations The Board discussed with staff the option;available for the case, Mr, Wheeler explained the ramifications of denial and the possibility of denial without prejudice. Ms,Phillips stated that if the Board denied the application the applicant could appeal to the City Council and thereby "appeal" the Planning Commission's decision. D 1W raatioti (Tax , created. , 'l'ltt�Board determined that the site Lot 8400) was in l p�4 without compliance with minimum lot depth requirements in effect at that time. The Board further determined that the lot was not buildable as a result,and that the Board was unable to consider the requested variance, • ,�� Despite the decision for denial,the Board sympathized with the applicant and owners and urged that the matter of the site's size and dimension be resolved so that the matter Of the variances could return to them fair consideration, Mr. ( reaves moved for denial without prejudice of VAR 21-90(a-d). Mr. roster seconded and the motion passed with Mr. Statnaway, Mr. Grenvt4,s, Mr. Poster and Ms. Remy all voting yes. Mr.Starr voted no, -----►y-Mil w-► -w:w..-►�--W►r-,IY 4-4 r V M►w W-►i-w W'-w--r w w:r w--1,, 3 9QWAR 22-9Q, a request by Wanda J,Winner for approval to create two parcels Cram a 19,0(X)sq. ft. lot. Bach parcel is proposed to be 9,122 and 9,922 sq.ft, in size, Also, the applicant is requesting approval of a 20 foot Class 2 variance to the 100 foot minimum lot depth requirement in an 11-7,5 Residential zone, The site is located at 16747 llonttire Avenue(Tax Lot 16(X)of Tax Map 2 Pa IDC), Chairman Foster explained the hearing procedures and timelines for testimony. He asked the Board members to declare any ex parte contacts,conflicts of interest or biases, Hearing none,he asked staff for a presentation. Mr,Wheeler explained that because of required dedication for right-of-way the lot no longer provides adequate lot depth from east to west, He stated that there was sufficient lot area for the lot to be divided according to the 11-7,5 zone. The newly created lot would not meet the minimum requirement for lot depth, Mr. Wheeler noted that Parcel I would comply with the lot depth; however, Parcel 2 requires a variance, lie discussed the variance crteria,explaining how the proposal could comply with conditions. 1 1113 Minutes 10/1/90 Page$of 7 M .ht10311Itunitgr.4.18t12$FIVV.Afryttrtf~.1► adj ake Qs vego$9703$,stated that he was representing his wife, Wanda Wimmer He discussed the masons for dividing the property. Mr. Wimmer objected to the requirement of dedication on Washington Court. He explained that there were two old growth firs within that 10' dedication area, Mr Wimmer objected to the requirement for paving the off-street Parking. He stated that they had been parking there, without it being paved,for 45 years, Mr, Wimmer objected i to placing drywellson the site, He was concerned about the deposit for the pathway, he felt that there would not be room within the right—of-way and suggested that the pathway be placed across the street, Mr,Winuner noted that the phone company had placed boxes for underground cable within the right—of-way. He stated that If the road was to be widened the box would have to be removed, EapQnvni 3C.onfuggerty,discussed his concern about the right—of—way and:the sidewalk, He stated that if the sidewalk was built, the porch would only be 8' to 10' away. He was concerned about the character of the neighborhood, Mr. Wheeler noted that the street wars not yet designed, He explained that the right-of- way was 50' however, the improvement could be offset to the south side to save trees. Chairman Foster discussed the process in which the City would design the public street, allowing for public input D.e ib xatio1a. Despite the applicant's opposition to cantiitlons 3,6, 8 and 11, the Board determined that 0 the dedication of additional right—of—way, the necessity of providing required off—street parking on Parcel 1, the necessity of providing diywells for storm drainage, for the existing dwelling on Parcel 1, and the provision of a pathway deposit where required by Code as a result of the applicant's development proposal,the equitable cost of which is to be borne_by the developer(applicant), Ms.Remy moved for approval of sr 90/VA:RZ—„ . Mr. Starr seconded and the motion passed with Mr. Stanttway, Mr. Groves, Mr. Foster, Ms. Remy and Mr. Starr all voting yes. Vxi., OTHER BUSINESS—Findings,Conclusions and Order Mr, Greaves noted changes for L.1 t. ' O-9O—$1,5,on page 3,between lines 10 and 11, after the words "parking space" insert the word"each", Page 4, item number 15, below line 34 after the word on add:"both", The correction should read "` , . one additional parking space on both Parcels 2 and 3 , , ." Mr. Greaves moved for approval of SD 3,G-9QIVA. 2O--9O SIi5,Findings, Conclusions and Order as amended. Ms. Remy seconded and the motion passed with Mr, Stanaway, Mr.Gre,aves, Mr. roster, Ms, Remy and Mr. Starr all voting yes. D1 13 Minutes 1O/1/9 Page 6 of 7 VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Development Review Board, the meeting adjourned at XOOO p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Barbara Ander.stort( Secret{try hill i/+U741 IPR(i9t)lblinuuaI)1 WII9d DRB Minutes 1O/1I9O Page 7 of 7 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO -449 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES September 17, =1990 I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of September 17, 1990 was called to order in the Council Chambers of City I•lull, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon, by Chairman Robert ICI, Foster at 7;30 p,m, IL ROLL CALL Board members present included Mr, Starr, Mr Poster, Ms. Remy, Mr, Groves Mr. Bloomer, Mr. Stanaway and'Mr. Sievert, Also present were; Bob Galante, Senior_Planner; Mike Wheeler, Associate Planner, Cindy Phillips, Assistant City Attorney, and Zarb Anderson, Administrative Secretary, III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-None IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS -None V. PUBLIC HEARING SD 30-90/VAR 16-9J1(a-b), a request by Drew Davis for a land partition to create two lots. Since the site is a platted lot in the Village on the Lake planned development,this request is also a request to modify the, approved planned development layout, The applicant is also requesting a 25 foot Class II Variance to the 25 foot lot frontage requirement [(lDS 18.020(1)] for proposed Parcel'. 2, The site is located at the cast terminus of Twin Points Drive right of way (Lot 28, Block 4, Village on the Lake Subdivision), other described as Tax Lot 3900 of Tax Map 2 113 9BD Supplemental, Ctntimma,ftsuu..Atgu,st 20. 1990, Mr. Poster opened the public hearing for this application, explaining the rules for the proceedings and outlining the amount of time that would be allowed for testimony. Ile asked the Board members if there were any ex parte contacts,bias or conflict of interests. None were declared, Bob Galante, Senior Planner, presented the staff report written September 7', 1990, lie noted receipt of Exhibit 39, a letter from Attorney Chris 1°Icrman on behalf of Mr. and Mrs, Robert i3urday in opposition to the proposal, Iles said that staff recommended denial of the application because the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to prove compliance with all applicable development standards (citing parking and loading, drainage, weak ORB Minutes Page 1 of I 1 September 17, 1990 ak r , foundation, soil, hillside protection and erosion control and access standards) and the variance criteria(citing th_lack of a grading plan in particular) 4 1 Mr. Galante discussed the density issue, stating that density transfer from steep slopes and areas ofsignificant natural features did occur in the original planned development • application,for Village on the Lake, p 'He said that the applicant'slicrurt lotwaS fntended to have ' low density because of its significant natural features, • A1'PJLICANT, Mandy Carver,OTAK, representing Drew Davis, reviewed the specifics of the site and ° its constraints, contending that they have provided sufficient evidence in theoriginal applicant and supplemeninl materials to prove compliance with all applicable standards, codes and policies. She discussed the density issue,stating that they were not increasing the density, as the original planned development had been approved at 101 units, and their request would put the density at 94 units, She noted the increase in the lot sire by 3500 square feet since the original planned development approval, Ms. Carver discussed a variety of issues specific to the site, including a larger than average lot size (15,000 square feet), the provision of two off" street parking spaces, and slopes 'I between 5% to 10%l She reviewed the three alternatives for the proposed home on parcel I, She said that they needed a variance to the access standard because access was from a • private street, Other specific issues she reviewed included solar access standard criteria, the gcotcchnical report provided on drainage, foundation and grading issues, consideration of t,y' impermeable surfaces within the threealternatives, and an agreement to limit their boat dock access to only one boat dock on parcel 2 to meet the Lake Corporation's concerns. Mike Barclay, Barclay & Associates, reviewed their consideration in design of the , I °, aesthetic ref of the project on the neighboring homes and the entire community, lie : Iw stated that the final product would be a well designed project, arecommended a a �� a a it vCarverf Mr. Greaves that a copy of Mr. I termini's letter be provided to Ms. so she could address several of the points in her.rebuttal. Ile stated that he was not satisfied : •1 . that that the applicant had satisfactorily addressed thevariance criteria,asking how this proposal created a hardship/ oil' mow; 'i Ms. Carver said that denying the request meant that the land would not be used efficiently since itsupport a `* homes; increasedensity • under t} e couldrrpprt�ved density. ty also it would Nr�c.rc,ase in a site that was..built out. 4 1 Mr. Greaves asked for Ms. Carver's response to stalls point that density was normally , 1' evaluated on a lot by lot basis, Ms. Carver concurred but contended that density transfer ., from this site did not occur in the original development. She cited a conversation with Nick '4,� I)itlf Minutes Page 2 of I 1 H4 September 17, 1990 *>' Bunick, the original developer, She argued that as long as each lot met the standards, it was presumed that it was a feasible and appropriate use. Mr Greaves asked if there was a tree survey for the proposed parcel, Ms. Carver said yes, and referred him to the application documentation, Mr. Greaves asked how many trees they anticipated would be removed in any of the three alternatives, Ms, Carver stated that no trees 8 inches and above in caliper would be removed from parcel 2. Mr. Greaves asked about opportunities for guest parking other than the two off street parking spaces provided, Ms, Carver, said that she did not know if the site would support more parking than required by the Code, Mr, Poster asked about the large fir tree he had seen on the site that appeared to be in the middle of the proposed driveway, he did not see it on the tree survey, Jeff I3acharaeh, Attorney for lf)rew Davis, stated that that tree was in the setback to the right of way. Mr, Foster described his concerns with the driveway, pointing out the 20 foot wide, straight driveway he had seen on the site and how it conflicted with the site plan presented, the bare bank on one side of it, and the potential overlapping of the houses with the driveway, l le requested clarificationduring the applicant's rebuttal, lie stated that he did not think the tree survey was accurate and asked that the large tree be saved as it was significant to the buildings above. He expressed concern that the impacts to the area of two homes can the site (rather than one)would be larger than stated by the applicant, Mrs, Bacharach reiterated that no density transfer occurred on this site, Mr. Greaves quoted from the April 15, 1985 DRi3 minutes, a statement from 13i11 Morning at Western Planning in which he stated that density was established on the site and modified site specifically, lle said that that was evidence of density transfer, lie expressed concern at setting a precedent for dividing lots larger than 15,000 square feet on the basis or economic hardship. Mr, l3aeharach 4tated that they have not been able to find any evidence that this lot was created at 30,000 square feet as a trade off, lie said that resolving that question would answer the entire application. Mr. Greaves commented that they might not find statements in the record specifically stating why the lot was created as it was; however evidence showing that the lots in the planned development were created with n.certain characteristic in mind meant that the lot configuration was a part of an integral plan to protect the entire site, and increasing density on any one site disturbed th2 original intent of the Board in 1985, Mr. Bacharach argued that he did not think the intent of the planned development was to consider planned development approvals as a single entity because then no one could D1tB Minutes Page 3 of 11 September 17, 1990 modify any planned development. He said that that view was not reflected in the findings, and that Exhibit 2 showed that there have already been several modifications to this planned development. Mr. Greaves said that the applicant had to show that the site was both compatible and in harmony with the entire Village on the Lake planned development, as was required by all the polices connected together, lie noted that the record showed areal: concern about • density in the original development and consideration of where density should be placed in view of the whole piece of property, Mr.Poster asked for those in favor of the project to come forward, i leering none,he asked for those opposed to the project to come forward, Ott VNENT elms IIcrman) Attorney on behalf of Mr, and Mrs. Robert Hut reviewed the background of the f3urdays' ownership of the property above the proposed site and their concern that any development not impact the surrounding neighborhood. Ile stated that they supported the staff report and analysis, l le pointed out that the Comprehensive flan policies and development standards reflected a deep commitment in.the City to preservation and conservation of natural resources, Ile argued that the applicant has not addressed the criteria sufficiently. considering the sensitive nature of this particular area Mr. Herman referred the Board to his letter that presented their objections ott a point by point basis. He discussed the issue of density, contending that common sense said there was an increase and noting the impacts on the environment already of building,just one home on the site. He argued that the in the original development application, this site was considered suitable for only one home because of the natural features,and that the applicant has not demonstrated that it should be modified Nancy t)urden, owner of Lot$ on Viewlalte Court,stated that her lot's view has already been dramatically impacted by the home recently built on the site that was placed deliberately to allow future subdivision. She commended Mr, Poster for visiting the site, pointing out the dramatic slope and the impossibility of accommodating adequate parking without blocking the street to emergency vehicle access, She contended that another home on this lot would destroy the look and impact of the Lake Corporation's original intent for this lot. Ms Darden stated that she did not think the applicant should be allowed to postpone again, expressing her frustration as a taxpayer at spending so touch staff time and money on this one application. l: il.l3 Minutes Page 4 of 11 September 17, 1990 Mark Roberts, 1870 Twin Points, entered a letter and a photo into the record. He stated that overall density was not the issue since he did not think an argument could be nude that Village on,the Lake could not be developed to its original approval of 101 units, Ile stated that the more compelling issue was the instructions by the Board to the developer to work with staff to transfer density and modify lot lines to eliminate building envelopes on lots of 50% slope or greater. He said that though a few exceptions were made, all density on slopes over 50%was transferred, He stated that though the applicant was correct in arguing that additional units could be built, he was incorrect in. assuming that additional growth could take place anywhere within Village on the Lake. Mr, Roberts reviewed statements in the application regarding development on slopes between 25% to 50%, the increase in the lot size to over 30,000 square feet, and the probability that Lot 28 was considered to support two home sites, Ile said that the applicant's point was moot because the density required to support another home had been transferred. He stated that he saw no evidence for the applicant's assumption that the hoard was required to act differently now that the lot size was greater than 30,000 square feet. Mr. Roberts stated that he did not feel this application was in compliance with the conditions of the original approval for Village on the Lake, andsupported the staffs findings and recommendation for denial, He said that the Davis' should have submitted this partition request prior to building their home and made it an integral part of the process, since they had always intended to subdivide the lot, Don Burdick, Lake Corporation, reviewed the background of the development at'this lot, hle stated that they had specifically stated dun this lot would be different than the other 101 lots because it was allowed direct lake access, whereas all of ier lots had access only through an easement. He said that they believed this lot would never be subdivided because it was just under 28,000 square feet, though they never required a written guarantee from, Nick Uuniek,the developer. He said that with the increase in lot siste,the Lake Corporation did not say it was inappropriate to subdivide the lot, but that they did say they had made a deal giving this lot exceptions based on it beint a single lot with one home and one access to the lake. Mr. Burdick stated that the applicant's agreement to limit the hake access to one boat dock was not acceptable to the Lake Corporation. Ile asked that if the application was approved over their objections, that the buffer area be continued across the thee of the properties to avoid future arguments about a shared boat dock and potential litigation. Mr, Burdick referred to the Lake Corporation's letter and stated that the argument for economic hardship was absurd, The lot was a..single family lot; the properties around the lake have increased its value partly because of the preservation of the resource, lie contended that the beneficial uses of the lake would be threatened once exceptions began to be made, Ile said that they saw this as a substantial exception and objected to it, � I Dltl3 Minutes Page 5 of 11 September 17, 1990 Charles Borland, President of Lake Corporation, cited evidence of environmental damage occurring from the construction of the present Davis home, noting that they would require Mr, Davis to clean up the lake buffer, He said that they wanted to know why there was land slippage if the site did conform with slope standards. He expressed concern about surface nmof .. He noted other concerns about slopes, fire safety, and land and water pollution,citing letters from Lynn Bailey and the Fire Marshall, Mr. Foster asked for those neither opposed nor in favor of the project to conic forward, Nick Bunick, Senior Officer of Village on the Lake Rome Owners Association and developer of Village on the Lake, stated that incorrect information had been presented tonight, and gave the following information as correct, The site was 45,6 acres and had had the possibility of 114 lots in the R-15 zone, it was approved at 101 lots and brought in at 91 lots due to marketing considerations, He said that the Conservancy Commission at the time hadn't wanted development on any slopes but that the Board held that it was absurd to say that homes couldn't be built on slopes. He stated that there had not been any density transfer, Mr.;Bu niek explained that this lot was almost twice the size or the other lots with direct lake access (and limited to one set of stairs)because he had intended to build his home on it; he had understood that the lot could have been designed as two lots, lie pointed out the distinctive natural areas protected on four of the lots, He said that there had not been a Site specific to this lot anymore than there had been on every other lot in Village on the Lake. Mr. Foster reviewed Mr, 13unick's statements regarding his intention to build only one house on the lot and not to divide the parcel, IIc asked Mr. Bunick if he had aggregated seine of the lots following the approval for 101 lots. Mr Bunick reviewed the history of the development,explaining that he had turned in a subdivision with only 99 lots following the 101 lot approval, and that over time he consolidated lots through lot Line adjustments fear a final development of 91 lots. He stated that this had all been done at the staff level in accordance with the regulations at the time, Mr, Stanaway asked about density transfer; noting that Mr, f3unick's statement that there bad not been any density transfer was in eontlict with the April 1, 1985 Board minutes, Mr. Bunick explained the context of the minutes, noting that the statements were made in view of the Conservancy Commission's attempts to prevent all lots on a slope; the situation dealt with slopes greater than$0%, Ms. Remy asked Mr. 13unick for his opinion on Condition 14, which stated that the applicant would work with staff to transfer density and modify lot lines as necessary to eliminate conflicts of building envelopes with 50%slope. Mr.t3utu k stated that they never did that because it hadn't been necessary. He contended that the lot line; adjustments DRB Minutes Page 6 of 11 September 17, 1990 approved administratively had been density reductions, not density transfers, He reiterated • that they ended up with 91 units out of the approved 101 units. Mr, roster asked if there was any further public testimony, Hearing._none, he closed the public hearing, He recessed the meeting for a five minute break. Mr, Foster reconvened the meeting, BILITAL Mr; Bacharach requested a continuance to consider the new evidence submitted tonight, including the eight page memorandum, citing ORS 197.763, He explained that the applicants intended to consider seriously all their options and would either decide not to come back or present a written report addressing all the issues and concerns raised, Cindy Phillips, Assistant City Attorney, stated that there was a state law mandating a seven day continuance for parties to consider new evidence, She said that the Board had to decide whether or not new evidence had been presented tonight. If they decided new evidence had not been presented, then they needed to decide i C. they would grant a continuance for other reasons, Mr. Bacharach said that they,would waive the 120 day rule. Mr. Foster asked the Board members for their opinions on granting a continuance, Mr. Oreaves stated that he did not believe new evidence had been presented tonight but supported granting a continuance to allow the applicant to work with the neighborhood and possibly resolve the issue, Mr, Stanaway concurred with Mr, Oreaves, expressing concern that the information requested by stafaat prior postponements had not been provided. Mr.Sievert agreed that no new evidence bad been presented and did not support granting a continuance on the grounds that the applicant has had sufficient time and opportunity to respond to staffs objections, Ms. Remy and Mr, Starr concurred, Mr. Bloomer agreed that no new evidence had been submitted but supported granting a continuance. Mr, Foster stated that he thought there has been new evidence submitted its that the applicant did not consider the subdivision as a whole, Mr. Foster MOVED to continue the hearing on $t) 304 ttR j6-90 (sr-b) to October 15, 1990 for the rebuttal. Mr. I31oorncr seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion PASSED with Mr, Stanaway, Mr, Oreaves, Mr. Poster, Mr. Bloomer voting yes}Mr.Sievert,Ms.Remy%and Mr. Stark voted no. -Y.M'Y'Y r Y.--- -.♦ -1---Y -'M-- -.-fry.- .- -.4-. Y.-.4- r Y r-Y r Y.Y_--._r.Y r M.Y.-. 1aRt3 Minutes Page 7 of 1 L September 17, 1990 SD3,6- 03/AR 2 .90, a request by Jose and Chaistel Saraiva for approval to create three parcels from a 43,614 sq. ft. lot, Each parcel is proposed to be in excess of 5,000 sq, ft. in size, Also, the applicant is seeking approval of a 25 foot Class Il variance to the access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet, The applicant proposes two parcels to have no portion abutting a street. The site is located at 2507 Rosewood Street,(Tax Lot 3200 of Tax Map 2 11 l f1A13), Mr. Foster opened the public hearing for this application, explaining the rules for the proceedings and outlined the amount of time that would be allowed for testimony. He asked the Board members if there were any ex parte contacts,bias or conflict of interests, None were declared. Mike Wheeler, Associate Planner, presented the staff report written September 7, 1990, He reviewed the specifics of the request, noting that parcel 1 was 25,000 square feet and parcels 2 and 3 were 7000 square feet each, He said that the rear parcels (2 & 3) had access viva private easement over parcel 1 (which was eligible for redivision in the future), He said that the request did meet all applicable standards and the variance criteria, referring the Board to the staff report, and recommended approval, APPLICANT Jose Saraiva, property owner,said that he was available to answer any questions, Mr. Greaves asked what Mr, Sara iva's reason was for two small lots and one large lot, Mr. Saraiva said that he thought 7,000 square feet was sulficicut. Mr. Greaves noted the lack of parking available to accommodate parties and commented that larger lot sizes allowing a modified culdesae instead of just a hammerhead were one way of addressing that concern. Mr,Saraiva said that there was sufficient parking in front of the garage, Mr. Starr pointed out that the private casement was within three feet of the present house, Mr. Saraiva said that he intended to sell the existing house and move to one of the back parcels because he could no longer take care of this large of a parcel, • Mr Foster asked if there was anyone opposed to the project or neither in favor nor opposed to the project, Hearing none,he closed the hearing to public testimony, Mr, Greaves asked Mr. Wheeler about the parking, expressing concern about applying different standards to different areas, Ile asked about parking on Rosewood, noting that 200 feet was a long distance to ask people to walk to the residences. Mr, Wheeler said that Rosewood had sufficient right of way for people to pull off on the shoulder, l°.le pointed out that prior approvals in this area have required either improving the roadbed or signing a nonremonstrance agreement. He stated that the Code did not provide guidance for parking DltB Minutes Page 8 of 11 September 17, 1990 situations beyond everyday use, He agreed that there was a need to study the issue of requiring additional off street parking and determine some guidelines. Mr, Greaves stated that he favored studying the issue but held that the Code did allow consideration of additional parking when a variance was requested, Ile reiterated his concerns about congestion,the distant walk from parking on Rosewood,and the blocking of access by emergency vehicles, Mr. Wheeler pointed out that the Fire Marshal suggested in Condition 9 requiring dedication of the easement as a fire lane; he suggested painting the pavement to indicate that it was a fire lane. Mr, Foster asked why staff had not required a dedicated street on this property to access the two rear lots, Mr, Wheeler said that there was a precedent in the area of not requiring a dedicated right of way on the smaller lots, as they were subdivided, because of their depths and widths, Mr. Stan►way asked how this partition into three lots would make the proposed property consistent with other areas in the neighborhood. Mr, Wheeler reviewed the partitions in the area,past and future, that divided parcels into three lots, lie pointed out that the location of the drainage way was an impediment to creating the future streets plan to serve the interior of the block, Ms, Reilly asked about the setback from the easement, Mr. Wheeler said that there was no II setback from the casement but that leaving a three foot planting strip was wise, Mr. Sievert asked if SD 9-88 already required a light to be put in across the street, Mr, Wheeler said that it was a matter of timing; whichever lot was developed first was responsible to install the light: DELI )ERATIQl Mr. Sievert said that he would like to see conditions dealing with the parking, marking the tire lane, and requiring the applicant to work with staff on the possibility of a wider strip between the house and the easement, Mr Greaves said that he would favor the application with certain.strict conditions, though he was not convinced that the variance criteria had been adequately addressed, Ile said that a condition he would impose was the applicant working with staff to increase the parking at the rear of the lot, even if it required increasing the lot sizes. l le commented on the possibility of additional development on the site as causing potential problems and the presence of a wide concrete strip fronting Rosewood, Ile said that he would grant approval DRI3 Minutes Page 9 of 1 l September 17, 1990 because of the precedent already set in the neighborhood. He stated that he did not favor making the marking of the fire lane a condition of approval. Mr. Wheeler requested clarification of Mr. Greaves' point. Mr. &eaves said he wanted stag'to work with the applicant to resolve the problem. The Board discussed the parking issue extensively. Mr, Saraiva pointed out that the wetlands behind his property meant that the road would never go beyond them, and that they couldn't make a culdesac because of ' the sewer line, Mr. Starr asked for a condition that staff work on improving the situaation with the proximity of the house to the easement, Mr, Foster concurred, Mr. Bloomer concurred with the previous statements. isle said that the proximity of the house to the casement didn't bother him that much,though he supported more parking in the back. Mr. Stanaway said that he wasn't concerned about the easement either but agreed that a condition could be ►mposed to address other Board members concerns. Mr. Stanaway asked if there was a limit to the number of parcels that.could be served from a private drive. Mr. Wheeler stated that the tire code required a minimum width of 20 feet for a drive providing access to three or more homes, Ile said that there wasn't any guidance on when access had to become a dedicated street;it depended on the circumstances of the situ, He cited several examples, Mr. Foster reviewed the conditions agreed upon by the Board, Mr,a' reaves MOVED for the approval of S)) 36-90/YAR 20.90 with the addition of the following three conditions: #14 - staff to work with the applicant to determine the configuration for additional off street parking for parcels 2 & 3 in as configuration to be mutually agreed upon, which could include an increase in parcel sizes in order to accommodate the particular configuration that was chosen (at least two more parking spaces available between parcels 2 & 3 to avoid blocking emergency access); #15 -the applicant to work with staff in an attempt to relocate the easement aas it currently placed on the property to provide additional space between the proposed private easement and the residence (a minimum of three feet from the cave to the easement); #16 - staff to direct the applicant to designate appropriately bite fire lane on the easement or to provide other appropriate no parking designations. Mr. Sievert seconded the motion, A roll call vote was taken and the motion PASSEL) with Mr. Sievert, Mr. Stanaway, Mr.Greaves, Mr, Foster, Ms, Remy,Mr. Starr,and Mr. Bloomer voting yes. DRt3 Minutes Page 10 of 11 September 17, 1990 VI. GENERAL PLANNING Mr. Galante reported that Doug Wilkins,owner of the Pine Valley house who had asked for a variance, was requesting that he be allowed to cut down the large lir tree directly in front of their front door in exchange for preserving a stand of trees that was originally going to be cut down. He reviewed the arborist's report that only one third of the tree roots would be left undisturbed by the till and the foundation,making it a potentially hit irdous tree, The Board discussed the situation and recommended that staff deny his request,contending that there were other options Mr. Wilkins could pursue that would preserve the tree, VII, OTHER BUSINESS-Findings,Conclusions and Order SA 29-90 Thomas W, O'Connor Mr.. Starr MOVED for; approval of SIB 29 90 fl 1. , Mr, hosier seconded the motion, A roll call vote was taken and the motion PASSED) with Mr, Sievert, Mr, Foster, Mr. Starr and Mr,.Bloomer voting yes;Mr. Stan=away,Mr. Greaves and Ms,Remy abstained, VE . AI)JOURNMCN ' There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chairman Foster adjourned the meeting, Rspecttl lly submi c tteda w 1/9 0` 1 c, .,,,,, 0, ..........0....... Barb Anderson Administrative Secretary I II 1 DRB Minutes Page l 1 of I September 17, 1990 ....._ CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO {i DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES September 5, 1990 , t .. .() I\ L CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of September 5, 1990 was called to order by Chairman Foster at 7:38 p.m, IL ROLL CALL Board members present included Mr.Bloomer, Mr, Starr, Mr.Foster and Mr. Sievert. Mr. Greaves, Mr. Stanaway and Ms. Remy were excused, Also present were Robert Galante, Acting Planning Director; Lynn Bailey, Associate Planner; Cindy Phillips, 'Deputy City Attorney; and Kathy Avery, Senior Secretary, III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was not a quorum of Board members eligible to vote so approval of the Mara.. J9, 1990 Minutes were postponed until the next hearing. IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None. �. V. PUBLIC HEARING 11112z,,20./yARL—.2.0111:111,a request by Dennis E. Eastman, Engineer for approval to upgrade the existing service station,which requires a Class 11 variance to the Access Standard and a Class I variance to the 25' setback requirement. The site is located at 780 N, State Street (Tax Lots 1600& 1700 of Tax Map 2 IE 3DA). Bob Galante noted that the applicant had requested that the hearing be set over until October 1, 1990. Mr. Starr moved to continue 0 ,2-90/VAR 5-90 (a:,b..)until Octolet' I, 1990. Mr. Sievert seconded the motion and it carried with Mr. Sievert, Mr. Foster, Mr,Starr and Mr. Bloomer voting yes, ----aide--.----------awl-------M'.--:Any-----------.-------1. —'—..w.:—' $11. 5-89, a request by Kenneth Hoal for approval of a 4 lot subdivision. The property is located between Cornell Street and Cornell Court approximately 800 , feet north of Bergis Road,otherwise described as Tax Lot 2400& 3000 of Tax Map 2 1E1SBA. Lynn Bailey noted that she had received a letter from the applicant requesting that the hearing be continued. 411 9/5/90 DR13 Minutes Page 1 of 5 Mr. Starr moved to continue SD 5549 to October 1, 1990. Mr. Sievert seconded the motion and it carried with Mr. Sievert, Mr.Foster,Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer 0 voting yes. VAR J7-9Q, ,a request by Ed & Patrice Westphal for approval of the following variances. a) A 25 foot Class 2 variav sae to the 25 foot required rear yard setback in an R- 10 residential zone [LOC 48.215(1)1 b) A 25 foot Class 2 variance to the 2$' Oswego Lake Special Setback [LOC 48,535(3)1; c) A 5' Class 2 variance to the 15' total required side yard setback in an lbw-t.Q residential zone L�C 48,215(J)'and d) A 20.6% Class Xt variance to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard which requires that at least 70% of the site remain free of structures and impervious surfaces. Only 49.4% of the site is proposed to remain free of such structures and surfaces, The site is located at on Arrowhead Court,north of South Shore Blvd. (Tax Lot 800 of Tax Map 2 1E 8DD), Chairman Foster pointed out that VAR 12_(01)had already been postponed to ``,.,Y October 15, 1990, 22 ,a request by Thomas W O'Connor for approval of a minor partition to create two lots(one additional residence) and a Future Street Plan, The site is located at 1954 Egan Way,otherwise described as Tax Lot 200 of Tax Map 21E 4CC. Chairman Foster explained the hearing procedures and inquired if any Board members had any conflicts of interest or any ex parte contacts and them was none. lie then requested a staff report. Ms. Bailey explained that the configuration of the future street plan had been changed from the onginal application and the applicant was proposing that the entire future street be located on Tax Lot 200 instead of partially being on Tax Lot 100 to the north of the site. She discussed the Distinctive Natural Area which was located on a portion of the site. She modified Condition #12 to provide that the density to the west of the existing residence would be limited to two additional units including Tax,Lot 300 atone no disturbance would be allowed within the DNA fir grove. Chairman Foster expressed concern that no mention had been made of'Tax Lot 300 previously and the,report was written to reference Tax Lot 200. Ms.Batley responded that Tax Lot 300 had inadvertently been left out of the staff report and the site actually consisted of two tax lots and she noted that she wanted the eventual use of Tax Lot 3(10 clear since the O'Connors owned both tax lots, 9/5/90 DRI3 Minutes Page 2 of 5 Applicant 0 ' 'g . 0. take,Qsw,e,ge,97034 explained that they were requesting the partition in order to give one son a portion of their lot located east of their present home in order to build a single family home, She noted that the request was originally very simple and became very complicated and time consuming. She explained that the westerly portion of their lot would be given to their other son at some future.date and phe expressed concern with the density limitations staff recommended. She requested that the language in the staff report referring to the density Of the westerly portion of the property be deleted and she requested that Conditions# 11 84 12 be deleted, Thom VV. O'ConnoxanSMIthatalie.Osvxego97034 submitted Exhibit 16 which was a copy of pages S and 9 of the staff report which included proposed changes to the conditions, He explained that the City had informed them that they would have to provide a future street plan to show how access would be taken to the rear portion of the site, He emphasized that it wasn't necessary to set a density limit for the westerly portion of the lot since they were not proposing developing it at the present time, Be pointed out that there had been some opposition to their original suture streets plan; however, they modified the plan and the driveway would only be loeiued on Tax Lot 200, ,Iaek.McAsaite,,195.2 Egat 2ty.J4ii1 Q 4%1171.: stated that he lived adjacent to the O'Connors and was in full support of their request. He agreed with the O'Connors that precautions were being taken for the westerly portion of the site where none were needed, He noted that none of the Egan Way residents wanted the road widened, • eMna ah, ,02.0"gali.20. Pg0.920.3.4 stated that he lived directly south of the O'Connors and supported their request. He also agreed that the City wtas being premature in placing density restrictions on the back portion of the site, Jane Yandelrrloeg,1>140.Sa.. 11 er„ .0. talc,. nIcL]tlYeli ,703.. was encouraged to see that the applicants were supporting the Comprehensive Plan in their, treatment of the Designated Natural Area. She urged,however, that no future roadway be allowed to go though the trees in order to prevent damage to them, titliller-OPPOPAAPLAgitila .lames 'IV. Morrell.Attorney,$2 L L .. 11i1iti. ,J'. .n ! J suited that he represented C. A, Edwani Uhli who owned the neighboring Tax Lot 100, Isle noted that his client had been opposed to the original future street plan since it involved his lot but found the new plan acceptable. He explained that the concerns raised by Mr,Uhlig in his letter marked.Exhibit 19 had been resolved and his client had no further objections to the proposal, 1 1 lean-MOWS In '�'. t:Y 97034 questioned whether a road needed to be built for the site and why the applicant's were opposing a density change. She urged that the tree grove not be disturbe all 9/5/90 i)R13 Minutes Page 3 or 5 Eebuttai ThallEtSirratimtexplained that a density restriction was arbitrary since they were • not proposing to develop Tax Lot 30, .,t the present time, He further explained that if they submitted a new application at st t future date for the development of that lot, then they would be prepared to have density restrictions placed an the property. Chairman poster asked for staff's comments on Mr.O'Connor's proposed changes to Conditions 7, 11 and 12, Ms, Bailey responded that her review of the application was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the way other applications had been processed. Ms, Phillips recommended that the Board not accept the proposed language for Condition#7 which dealt with the nonremonstrance agreement since it would limit the potential contribution of the parcel to any future Local Improvement District. Mt,Galante explained that the applicants were concerned with "signing a blank check", He suggested that staff could put in writing the maximum responsibility of the O'Connors; however, he noted that it could delay the Board's decision and he stated that the best solution was to leave the condition as it was originally written, He explained that staff required the future street plan to insure that the site would be effectively served, Ms. Bailey recommended that Condition#12 be reworded to read that the density to the west of the existing DNA shall be limited to two additional units, She explained that the Comprehensive Plan required that the City limit density to achieve the result of protecting DNA areas, M ; Seeing no further testimony to come before the Board,Chairman poster closed the public hearing for Board deliberation. Delktaithm. The Board concurred that Conditions 7 and 11 should remain as written and agreed that the wording of Condition 12 should be revised according to the suggestion of Ms. Bailey. Mr,Sievert expressed some concern that Condition 12 appeared to be overly restrictive in respect to density. Chairman}`tester moved for approval of SD 2949 in accordance with the deliberation of the Board and the conditions in the staff report 1-17,with a change to Condition#12 where it shall read"Density to the west of the existing DNA be limited to two additional lots inehidmg Tax Lot 300 and no disturbance shall be allowed within the DNA fir grove except for future street" Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert,Mr.Foster, Mr.Starr and Mr. Bloomer voting yes, Vt. GENERAL PLANNING Mr. Galante explained that it was Lynn Bailey's last Board meeting since she was going back to work for Washington County, Mr, Galante presented a revised plan for Nichol's Hardware Store on Booties Ferry Road, lie reminded the Board that they had requested that the structure needed to be moved back from the street;however,the owner was reluctant to lose the frontage so 9/5/90 DRB Minutes Page 4 of 5 they bad submitted the revised remodel plan, The Board agreed that the request had substantially changed so the request should come back zo the Board for review, Mr. Galante illustrated some problems that had come up since the Melrose and Kingsgate school went under development. He explained that as the developers began to excavate the site, they encountered an unexpected amount of rock which they anticipated costing an additional $1,000,000 to excavate. They then requested that the school structure be built four feet higher in order to save approximately$400,01)0 in excavation fees., He also discussed the need for placing a retaining wall between the school building and the playing field since the structure would then sit higher than the field, Mr. Galante reminded the Board that the City was receiving considerable pressure to get the school under way. Mr. Bloomer was opposed to placing a nine foot retaining wall and instead suggested that they create a terracing effect. Mr. Galante also suggested placing a berm. The Board agreed that they wouldn't have a problem with raising the wall but suggested that the developer mitigate the visual impact. Mr. Galante also mentioned that the developer had failed to put erosion control measures in place when they filled the nonessential portion of the wetland so they failed to preserve the plant materials which were proposed to be set aside for mitigation. He further explained that they had since informed the City that they would purchase new materials to replace the loss« Chairman Foster mentioned his discussion with Charles Old itrm, Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission who was concerned that the City had no code enforcement officer to ensure that developers built according to their permits, Ms. Phillips explained ' that the position was included in the budget but it was turned down. Mr. Galante \ : discussed the various code violations for which the City had received calls on. Vii OTHER BUSINESS—Findings,Conclusions and Order None, VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Boaard, Chairman Foster adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 'Kathy Avery Senior Secretary kaa 4/11/91 9/5/90 DRB Minutes Page 5 of 5. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO . • 1, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES TU)ESDAY,AUGUST 28, 1990_ lin\ I, CALL TO ORDER 1.1 The Development Review Board meeting of August 28, 1990 was called to order by Acting Chairman Owaves at 7;30 p.m Il. ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr. Bloomer, Mr, Starr, Mr. Greaves, Mr. Stanaway and Mr.Sievert. Mr.Foster and Ms. Remy were excused. Also present were Robert Galante, Acting Planning Director; Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney; and Barbara Anderson, Secretary, III, APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr.Stanaway moved for approval of the March 19, 199QMin.uteas (first.vote). Mr, Starr seconded and the motion passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr.Greaves and Mr. Bloomer voting yes. Mr. Sievert and Mr. Bloomer abstained. IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS ' V. GENERAL PLANNING VI. PUBLIC HEARING VII. OTHER BUSINESS—Findings, Conclusions and Order Mr. Starr moved for approval of PA.$-90-508 Findings,Conclusions and Order, Mr.Stanavvay seconded and the motion passed with Mr.Sievert,Mr Stanaway,Mr. Greaves,Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Development Review Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, p4/4 /1,1,, ...)/ M4 AdeA4 Barbara Anderson Secretary 410 DRB Minutes 8/28,0 Page lofl /49 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 80 ie DEVELOPMENT REVIEW fO.ARD MINUTES , ,„ t, MONDAY,AUGUST 20,1990 I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of August 20, 1990 was called to order by Vice-Chairman Remy at 7:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board members present were Ms. Remy, Mr, Sievert, Mr Stanaway and Mr.Bloomer, Mr. Foster, Mr.Graves and Mr, Starr were excused. Also present were Robert Galante, Acting Planning Director, Lynn Bailey, Associate Planner; Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney; and Barbara Anderson, Secretary, III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 5, 1990 March 19, 1990 Due to the lack of a quorum the minutes for March 5, 1990 and March 19, 1990 were postponed until the September 5, 1990 agenda. • IV, PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC IIEA'RINC $D,' 0-90WAR ltrt-90(1 ,a request by Drew Davis for a land partition to create two lots. Since the site is a platted lot in the Village on the Lake planned development, this request is also a request to modify the approved planned development layout, The applicant is also requesting a 25 foot Class II Variance to the 25 foot lot frontage requirement(DS 18.020(1)for proposed Parcel 2. The site is located at the east terminus of Twin Points Drive right-of-way(Lot 28,Block 4, Village on the Lake Subdivision),otherwise described as Tax Lot 2900 of Tax Map 2 11E 9131)Supplemental Lynn Bailey explained to the Board that the applicant had requested continuance of SD. 30-9Q\VA,R llfrOff ,,,l in order to better address the staff report. 'Tile applicant will be submitting additional information. She recommended continuance to September 17, 1990. Mr. Stanaway moved for continuance of -- to September 17,1990. Mr..Bloomer seconded and the motion passed with Mr. Sievert,Mr. Stanaway, Ms.Remy and Mr.Bloomer all voting yes, Minutes Notebook DRi3 .Minutes 8124I9Q (original) Page 1 off VAR 11-90( , Patrice,WeS ghill for approval of the following variances;, Ai5 fot Class 2Aariance to The 25 too( re cliin uLll :.10 k � resident allon 1LOC 42I5( , Izl A 25_foot Class_2.x►►r.Iense to the 25',0,53vc 4Bli pedal Setback S (3)1 c. !L5' Class. rlance to the 15' total required side yard sedb►tckiu> ttlt.lE3:.�lR resident'al ,cane (f()C 4 .215f11'_atad A.2Q 6l ea II variance to the Billie t de otect on And 1Croshut Control Standard which resiuiresjthat aLlka t O% of the site remaiu:,fres of structures ap.sU.anperviaussurfacts .h .49.4%taf the site is t►ropnSed,,tosktnainketof suckstructures.antsurfaces. The site is locatesilica court.north ►f a nth ih arc l ili Tnsc LntA00, of Tux Mug 21 E 8DD) Mr, Galante informed the Board that R 17--90(a-it had been postponed, as well, Fle recommended that this item should be continued to September 5, 1990, Mr. Stanaway moved for continuance of'VA # to September 5, 1990. Mr. Sievert seconded and the motion passed with Mr, Sievert, Mr, Stanaway, Ms Reny and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. VI. GENERAL PLANNING Mr, Galante explained to the Board that at the last Planning Co*nmis ion meeting the Commission voted to recommend to Council the recommendations regarding changes in lot coverage and setback in order to address intill in the City, The Council will be reviewing those changes in the near future. VII. OTHER BUSINESS-Findings,Conclusions and Order Mr, Galante discussed the I'I)5-90 Findings, Conclusions and Order. He stated that the other Board members had expressed interest in having an opportunity to comment on the findings. Mr, Galante suggested postponing the adoption of the findings until the next meeting in order to allow all Board members a chance to thoroughly review the written findings. The Board agreed VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being,no further business to come before the Development Review Board,the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m, Respectfully Submitted, (3A4t..ba/w/LyAde4411------- Barbara Anderson Secretary DRB Minutes 8/20/90 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 1990 , 41) 1. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of August f, 1990 was called to order by Chairman Foster at 730 p.m, ii. ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr.Bloomer, Mr.Foster, Mr, Greaves, Ms. Remy,Mr, Sievert,Mr. Stanaway and Mr. Starr. Also present were l amid Pishvaie,Development Review Planner; Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney; and Barbara Anderson,Secretary, Ill, APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV, PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V, PUBLIC IlEARINIY J I „„5.-9Q a request by llomesite Development Corp..for approval of a 15--lot planned development,and approval for a minor reduction in lot size, depth,width and front yard setback for certain lots, The site is located on iron Mountain Blvd.,across from Summit Drive(Tax Lot 600 of Tax Map 2 LE 9). 411) llamid Pishvaie explained that new exhibits had been received, Ile discussed issues relating to the bike path along Iron Mountain Blvd,, the potential for an earthquake along the fault line, the distinctive natural areas, the open space acquisition and the storm drainage for the area Chairman Foster asked the Board members it there were any ex party contacts or conflicts of interest. Ms, Remy noted for the record that she had worked indirectly with I°totnesite Development in the past as a third party. She stated that this contact would not affect her decision. Chairman Foster explained the hearing procedures and timelines for testimony. Mr.Pishvaie discussed the history of the project, stating that it originally had been part of another application, PO 18-89, He discussed the applicant's decision, because of public input at that time, to withdraw the northern portion of the project. Mr. Pishvaie explained that the northern portion was now the subject of the hearing before the Board. PL) 1 S—h9 (the south portion)was approved on April 16, 1990. Since that time the City had been working with the applicant on the potential purchase of the coral side; however, no solution has resulted as of yet and the applicant has nowsubmitted an application for development of tie north side, Mr, Pishvaie explained that the City was in the process of passing a bond measure to generate revenue to purchase several pieces of property for open space,,includin property along the Iron Mountain Corridor, The City Council has been holding executive sessions and it is not known to staff, at this time,whether or not the site in question would be included in the public open space acquisition covered by the bond measure, Mr. Pishvaie noted that the site was identified in the Comprehensive Plan as Distinctive Natural Area (DNA)#t53, Ile discussed the topography of the site, stating that the majority 410 of the steep area would be set aside as a protective natural area,measuring about 46% of the total site,, The surrounding uses are predominantly single—family to the east and north. Beyond that there is a 12 acre acquisition site and an existing City park. Mr, Pishvatie discussed the relative Plan policies and applicable criteria. Tie discussed the proposed reductions to lot width and depth size for several lots,stating that such reductions could be supported. 8/6/90 DR13 Minutes Page 1 of Mr.Pishvaie stated that staff was recommending that the protected natural area should be expanded on several lots as shown on Exhibit 11, Staff feels that the expansion of the area would have no impact on the buildability of the lots. In addition to the expansion of the PNA,staff is also recommending a five foot building setback from the PNA lines in order to protect those features, Without this additional setback,the buildings could be built right to that line. Mr. Pishvaie noted that staff was also recommending that a conservation easement along Iron Mountain Boulevard should be platted, Mr. Pishvaie discussed issues relating to the Drainage Standard, lie noted that there was an error in the staff report regarding the phosphorous count and the proposal could comply with the new DEQ rules, He discussed the proposed access, stating that the majority of the lots, with the exception of Lot 4,would have joint access. The applicant proposes to have direct. access to Iron Mountain Boulevard for Lot 4. The private access ways should be constructed to Private Street Standards and should be required to be=dedicated as fire lanes and posted as such to assure adequate emergency vehicle access. Mr. Pishvaie stated that in conclusion, the proposal complies with the applicable regulations. Therefore, staff recommends approval with conditions. Chairman Foster asked staff to discuss the new transportation exhibit and the earthquake fault line. Mr,Pishvae stated that the City Engineer had reviewed.the transportation exhibit and that the applicant's geologist would be discussing the fault line in further detail. Applimutt Art Pied l nesi elletcloiniueanL anti u,123.6.SW,Kelly0,,Eurilarnit.922U1 discussed the consideration by the City to purchase the site, IIe stated that when the project • was brought before the Board there was considerable public interest for having the north side preserved as open space. Some special interest groups were working on a method of fund raising to purchase the site. Mr, Piculell stated that he has not had any response from those groups or the City for several months, therefore, he was processing his application for development of the north side. Mr. Piculell stated that he had raised an issue with the City regarding the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to include his 7,5 acres for public acquisition open space, He noted that there was a hearing before the City Manager. Staff had determined that the 7.5 acres was not part of the public open space acquisition. fie explained that the interpretation by the City Manager was on appeal to the Planning Commission for two reasons: 1) that the 2.9 acres be declared public open space acquisition since that was their finding, and 2) the distinctive natural areas found iin the Comprehensive Plan regarding specific reference as Distinctive Natural Area#53. Mr. Piculell objected to waiting for the bond issue to pass or fail. He felt that the site could meet the criteria for approval and it was within his right to develop the site. Mr. Piculell stated that he was in agreement with the staff report with two exceptions: 1) the expansion of the protection natural area on Lot 15, lIe explained that because of the topography of Lot 15, there was only one access alternative. He stated, that piece of the site was only developable if there was a curb cut off of Iron Mountain Boulevard, Mr. Piculell also stated that Lot 15 has had a large amount of material removed within the last 20 years, He further noted that because of this he felt that,Lot 15 should not,be included as part of the PNA. 2) the conservation easement along Iron Mountain Boulevard. He stated that there was not a need for the conservation easement because of the Tree Cutting Ordinance established in the City. He explained that any cutting of vegetation on the site would be only that necessary to site building pads and for vision clearance purposes. 0311/11liikYki.4 Consuliitj ti U nicer,Wesigt:tt'litttttial W rs lst► ;. 'irtwtia� discussed the additional off street parking, the fact that the traffic study did not discuss the bike path, street lighting and the drainage issue. He stated that six off—street parking spaces 8/6/90ORB Minutes Page 2of7 were proposed(two within the garage structure). Mr. Van Dyke emphasized that the applicant would prefer to use town and country style street lighting because it was more • 1 , residential in character, He explained that there were three separate drainage flow patterns a" : on the site and that it had been determined that three separate drainage ponds would be necessary, He stated that he would be willing to work with staff on the design. Tony:Wright...,b► ...Leh S 43 st mentioned that he had walked the area looking for potential,geological erosion as well as any hazards, He found none, The site is fairly steep. It varies from.50% grade over the steep hillside,diminishing to about 30%over the lower grade and is quite flat adjacent to the north side of Iron Mountain Blvd, He discussed the inferred fault that parallels the north side of Iron Mountain Blvd, This inferred fault does not appear to be active, and no imtnifestations of fault movements were observed. He mentioned that a new map had been issued subsequent to the issuance of his geotechnical report, He verified facts regarding the map with Mr, Beeson, who had also studied the area. He pointed out that Mr.Beeson had soil samples from cuts that were located on the top of the ridge above Iron Mountain Blvd, and compared these to samples of basalt which were discovered on the south side of Iron Mountain Blvd'„ presumably in the road, Since there was a vertical displacement, he assumed and inferred that there was a fault running through the area. Mr,Beeson is very confident that a fault exists,but he feels that it is very minor and would not be a generator of earthquake activity, The Board asked Mr. Wright to define a minor fault as opposed to a major fault. Mr.Wright answered that a fault would be classified on the basis of the vertical movement on the basis of soil samples of one side of the fault and on the other, The Board inquired as to whether or not the possibility of development on the site had been 0 discussed with Mr, Beeson, Mr, Wright assured the Board that he had discussed this particular development with Mt.Beeson. Mr.Beeson could see no particular problems, The ratings on the geologic maps were low and did not prohibit residential development. The Board questioned Mr, Wright about the potential hazards from a minor inferred fault, Mr, Wright stated that the potential for a disbursement or a distress to residential development would be.minor, The Board asked Mr, Wright to clarify the table,' Mr, Wright explained that a low density development has three potential ratings. A completely blackened dot for at higher rating, a half—toned dot for a moderate rating and then an open dot circle for a$Bath retina, The table illustrates that slumps are high, mud and debris flow tire high,compressible soil are high, shrinks swell soils are high,thin soils are high,and wet soils loll high water table arehigh. Mrr Wright stated that he had completed a site inspection and found no evidence of slumps, mud or debris flows,or compressible soils, He found basalt rock extremely close to the surface, shrink swell soils and thin soils, He stated that in his opinion thin soils were not likely to be a problem. Mr Wright stated that it could be assumed that there would be a potential for storm runoff. Brown control measures are clearly necessary. Op ant 1 ary last ltiroiatko .. ake_ ro .ii;t.11960001 n 3:.. 4' utset Q�s cgQ announced that the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association had written a letter of opposition on November 17, 1989, She;stated that the neighborhood continues to oppose the development. She urged the Board to deny the Homesite proposal. 40 algitLYIMIle15362-3,1Williiriottdelettkv—Osw.ege stated that she was appalled that the Iron Mountain corridor was not to be saved, She felt that it should have been clear to the residents of Lake Oswego that this portion was not u be included in the open space acquisition, She was concerned About the wilderness and the.jogging trail along Iron Mountain Blvd, 8/6/901 RU Minutes Page 3 of 1 0 R t a(Lilak emphasized that the neighborhood's position wits the same, they were still an opposition to the development. She discussed her involvement with the committee to purchase the site and explained that the committee was working towards Including the entire corridor area for opeat space acquisition; however, nothing had been resolved as of yet. She stated that she was in agreement with Mr, Piculell that the entire site was not considered as to distinctive natural area in the Comprehensive Plan, but it should have been, Ms.Pennington discussed a letter by Don Bar, a geologist, who wrote explaining that the inferred fault had been upgraded to a fault in the latest map that was published in June by a geological society, She stated that the neighborhood was concerned about traffic, She had a letter in her files from the post office asking a neighbor on Iron Mountain Blvd, to move her mailbox to Fairview, because it was unsafe for postal delivery on Iron Mountain t31vd Lkgannej)BstromallaWemlittyllace,Lillie Oswego declared that any development of this valuable piece of beauty in Lake Oswego would permanently scar the community. She was concerned about traffic,the children, bikers and,loggers along that trail, She stated that there were deer and other wildlife dependent on the open space, Ms. 131lstrom was concerned about blasting, the underbrush and tall spruce stands that would be destroyed) the weakening of the Douglas firs,storm water runoff and seeing homes built on stilts. Ittueginngon,J.Mganiiity,itakttasmsgo stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Lake Oswego View Trails Committee. He noted that the committee shared the same opposition and concerns as the Springbrook Neighborhood Association, Mr. Winston expressed concern regarding the timing of the hearing versus the timing of the bond measure. He was particularly concerned about the Cuy's neglect in assuring Mr.Piculell that the site had been included as part of the open space acquisition. Mr. Winston discussed , his concern about the fault lino,stating that he had spoke with Professor Bar, a geologist, ' :; He stated that Professor Bar had answered questions and directed him to the geological map by Mr, Madden, He then questioned Mr, Madden who informed Nina that there was a new map. Mr. Winston pointed out that the old map referred to the fault as an iufermd1au1,and the new map has been upgraded to the bon lviountain Fault, Mr,Winston discussed newspaper clippings that had been submitted. He expressed concern about the Hunt Club wetlands and the flooding that ocmirs. Mr. Winston stated that he aid not see any mitigating factors in the proposal to handle the drainage problems. The Board questioned Mr. Winston about evidence confirming that the Iron Mountain fault was an earthquake fault as opposed to tin uplifting type of fault, which Mr. Wright had stated was different, Mr, Winston stated that it was his understanding that earthquakes are caused by uplifting of one plate of land over another plate, lie stated that he had no evidence that would show something different, Mr.Winston concluded by urging the Board to deny the application, a oLical ,Presin[cad lagtioallomcz k aliamos. .ux tY,M Carlion—C. trtilaksamp requested the Board to delay the hearing until the bond treasure had been voted on. I I Etitzlitoralaktuanaorest tligklandtazighilighood Asses ina0n,90 Atwata math.Lttkm S i lt,stated that one wits in agreement with testimony already given He was concerned about a natural Wafter zone between the proposed housing and the existing bike path along Iron Mountain Blvd. Rid►r tayJ,la tjj 1.,.. 24 ..'[iljoar` ' k ego expressed concern regarding the bike/jogging path, He stated that it was one of the few. places left in.Lake Oswego that 41.0 provided a safe 1/2 mile jog, Mr. Raymond stated that tt was insensitive ott the City's part to break up a geological and geographical site like this. 8//9O ORB Minutes Page 4 of 7 Chris Draun,2291 SW Iron Mountain Blvd.,'Lake Oswego mentioned the traffic problems existing along Iron Mountain Blvd, He was concerned about ingress and egress onto the site, He discussed the drainage problems. Mr. Braun remarked on the steepness of the hillside and the amount of wildlife dependent on the trees and vegetation on the site. Aaron. ilstrom,21 2 Wembley Plate,Lake Jim=expressed his concern about the amount of development in Lake Oswego. He discussed the beauty of the northwest. He emphasized his concern about the density in some parts of the city. He urged the Board to protect the future generations of Lake Oswego and deny the proposal. Carol Raymond,424a Upper Drive, Lake OswegQ expressed her confusion as to why the proposal was being heard if the bond measure had not been voted upon. She stated that it was her understanding that the developers were going to wait. Ld_Collins,2810,5W,5ujnmit Drive,Lake Oswego stated that he agreed with most of the testimony previously given, He raised an issue regarding traffic. Mr. Collins discussed the dangerous situation on Iron Mountain Blvd. which occurs when a car is traveling from west to east and slows down to make a turn onto Summit Drive, He stated that he had experienced several near accidents there from cars passing at that point. Laua.a,,C, t .,button T itit ake ()sweat expressed concern regarding the timing of the proposal. She stated that it was her understanding also that the site was to be on the open space acquisition list. She felt the proposal should be delayed until the bond measure was resolved. Chairman Poster asked for testimony from anyone neither opposed nor in favor of the project. Hearing none, he asked the applicant for rebuttal, , ;k E. lttttlal , r. j unh ite DeYdIDIM ellt stated that he was not waiting any longer to process his proposal because he had been waiting since November of 1989 Mr. Piculell stated that proceeding with the proposal may not affect the assessed value of the site. Assessed valuation is raised by the county and that is done through a process either annually or by trending. Homesite Development agreed to hold the property back through the month of May 1990, not until a bond issue was to be initiated by the City, There will be no blasting for foundations for the rock outcropping. Mr.Piculell explained that the drainage problems had been addressed at the previous hearing. He noted that all vehicles will exit front onM Iron Mountain Blvd.from the proposed site. The traffic report indicates that Iron Mountain Blvd. can handle additional traffic. It is a collector road with plenty of capacity. s nyJirifihf,indicated that the 1989 map had not been upgraded from the 1979 map. He explained that the fault was still, in fact, an inferred fault and a typographic error had occurred on the 1989 map, it should have been a dotted line instead of a solid line. Mr, Wright agreed that it would not be necessary to blast the site in order to prepare for foundations, Deliberation After reviewing the staff analysis on page 6 of the July 27, 1990 staff report, and after receiving testimony from the applicant,the Board found that the site is ne'listed for open space acquisition in the Comprehensive Plan. `I he acquisition area includes Cax Lots 100 and 500 of Tax Map 2 11"a 9 Index. 0 Oral testimony by the City Engineer indicated that in order to provide proper lighting on Iron Mt. Blvd.,the proposed street lights should be spaced at 150 feet. 8/6/90 012I3 Minutes Page 5 of 7 Testimony by the consulting engineer had adequately addressed the geotechnleal'issues including,the earthquake, soils and on—site slides hazards. The evidence sub ests that the i.;, Iron Mt fault is not created by earthquake,but rather it is caused by stress fields, Exhibit 30 "'. suggests that single family residential developments an appropriate land use on this site, The Board also found that the site is comparable to many other sites with similar characteristics and that it is buildable. After reviewing the existing drainage system (Exhibit 1.9), the Board found that the pmposed drainage system is adequate to serve the development. On the issue of how many detention ponds are needed to control storm runoff, the Board found that staff recommendation to consolidate some of the proposed ponds was appropriate, The Board also found that with proper and regular maintenance by the City,the downstream system was adequate to serve increased runoff from the site. After reviewing Exhibit 18,the Board found that staff recommendation to expand the proposed natural protection area (N.P.A.) on Lots 4, 11-13 and 15 was appropriate, The Board received testimony from the applicant regarding the development potential of the undeveloped property located at the northeast corner of the site. The applicant testified that due to steep slope and other site limitations, the only suitable access to that property would be through the easterly portion of Lot 15; therefore, he was recommending against the expansion of N,P.A,boundary on that lot, After reviewing the evidence, the Board found that the N.P.A. boundary should be expanded on Lot 15, and that the access needs of the northerly parcel could be acknowledged through appropriate language in the conditions of approval, The Board found that the proposal did not comply with the applicable criteria based on the following analysis; 411 a► The project density did not respond to special site characteristics, The Board found that while up to 21 lots may be allowed on the site(as per LOC 418,2(15), the applicant failed to address potential impacts on the Distinctive Natural Area (DNA) No, 53 and the associated wildlife habitat The Board found that the applicant failed to clearly identify and delineate the valuable open space area. ✓ The proposed clustering of Lots 6-10 was out of character with the existing development pattern along Iron Mt.Blvd.,which consists of large homesites and large undeveloped parcels, This clustering was also out of character with large lots proposed within the development, The Board found that the applicant failed to address General Policy 1 of the Residential Density Policies and General Policy I of the Residential Site Design Policies. • The proposed reductions in lot size and dimensions for approximately 50% of the lots, would not adequately protect the DNA and open space protection,and was contrary to the spirit of the R-15 zone, which was to provide larger,lots. The Board found that larger lots(at least 15,000 square feet)were desirable on the site, since they would be more in character with the neighborhood and would protect existing on—site resources i including natural vegetation and steep slopes, The Board found that the applicant failed to properly address the DNA and Wildlife Habitat Policies, to The Board recognized that the purpose of the planned development process is to encourage preservation of natural resources and creation of open space by encouraging clustered development, However,after reviewing the evidence, the Board found that the proposed project design,with its small lot sizes and reduced lot dimensions,did not contribute to the protection of open space, and it actually diminished the natural resource values of the site, 410 to Testimony by the public raised traffic safety concerns regarding crossing of the II bike/pedestrian pathway and guest parking along Iron Mt, Blvd. The Board found,that 8/6/90 DRB Minutes Page 6 of 7 while the traffic reports(Exhibits 16 and 23)addressed the sight distance and trip generation issues,other concerns such as guest parking and crossing of the bike path were riot adequately addressed by the applicant. , Mr. Greaves moved for,denial of 1Pp,5-90 and Mr.Starr seconded, The;:motion Passed s:.n k` with Mr. Sievert,Mr. Stanaway, Mr,Greaves,Mr, Foster,Ms; Remy, Mr,Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. VI, GENERAL PLANNING flamid Pishvaie explained that the developer had requested a name change for the Bay Creek Estates No, 5 project, The developer proposed to change the name of Ball Creek to Kilchurn Avenue. Mr. Stanaway moved for italiLrgeklitheslianged to Jilclutrrt Mena,, Ms, Rerrry seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr, Greaves, Mr,Foster,Ms. Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. Mr.Sievert abstained. VII, OTHER, BUSINESS—Findings, Conclusions and Order Mr. Foster moved for approval of j211),,,24-131-7l2 Fitt .ingXonctustods.and Ordex, Ms. le Remy seconded and the motion passed with Mr, Sievert, Mr, Stanaaway,Mr.Greaves,Mr. Foster, Ms, Remy,Mr. Starr and Mr Bloomer all voting yes Mr. Starr moved for approval of,SD4 /..Yj K 41-8 - 80 t djngs,Con fusions and f.later. Mr, (;reaves,seconded and the motion passed with Mr.Greaves, Ms. Remy, Mr, Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes, Mr, Sievert, Mr,Stanaway and Mr,Foster all abstained. ,, Mr. Starr moved for approval of DR9.90J)R l $ „.. --`t )4)i Findings, r, 3Qn1 S td.order« Mr. Greaves seconded and the motion passed with Mr.Greaves, Ms, Remy, Mr,Starr and Mr, Bloomer all voting yes, Mr. Sievert, Mr. Stanaway and Mr, Foster all abstained, r y l < �indi1 , CAmdt tt' '.00 Qrder. Mr. Greaves moved for aplzrova!-af�R i��� Mr.Starr seconded and the motion passed with Mr.Gi aaves,Ms. Remy,Mr,Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes, Mr. Sievert, Mr, Stanaway and Mr. Foster all abstained, Ms.Remy moved for approval of A Q.-1 fl. —9O 02 i intf jng0,Ctdn lusious and. ar_der, Mr. Starr seconded and the motion passed with Mr,Greaves, Ms, Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes, Mr. Sievert, Mr, Stanatwaay and Mr,'roster all abstained. Mr. Foster moved for approval of DES;SSfMSad, tiln` .otsaGiS Qom. Ms. Remy seconded and the motion passed with Mr.Staanaaway, Mr, Foster, Ms, Remy and Mr, Starr all voting yes. Mr. Sievert, Mr. Groves and Mr, Bloomer all abstained. Vlli, ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Development Review Board,the meeting adjourned at 12 30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ' V-1644A, a,e4-4t(7.-----s, 0 Barbara Anderson l)evetopment Review Board Secretary 8/6/90,Dlti3 Minutes Page 7 of 7 w un 4,t04,, 0 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO al DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES /20 �,. 1V1ONDAY,JUI.,Y 16,1990 4 1, CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of July 16, 1990 was called to order by Chairman Foster at 7:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr. Foster,Ms..Remy,Mr.Sievert, Mr. Stanaway and Mr, Starr, Mr. ;Bloomer and Mr.Greaves were excused. Also present were Robert Galante, II 11 Acting Planning Director; Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney; and Barbara Anderson, Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. GENERAL PLANNING VI. PUBLIC IIEARINC ` " I}It 2:72ALY 1R ), a request by Dennis L.Bastnian,Engineer for Approval to ,:. upgrade the existing service station, which requires a Clas► II variance to the Access Standard and a Class I variance to the 25' setback requirement. The site is located tit 780 N. State Street (Tax Lots 1600& 1700 of Tax Map 21B 3DA). u , e. . 1221. Robert Galante informed the Board that the applicant had submitted a letter for continuance on this item. Mr.Galante explained that the applicant would be submitting new materials and due to the notice requirements DR 2-90/VAR 5-90(n—b) should be continued to September 5, 1990. Mr.Starr moved for continuance of f1 . / AR,. , )...(nb to September 5, 1.990, Reilly and Mr. Stan.and thevoting motion yes assed_with Mr,Sievert,Mr.Stanaway,Mr.roster, Ms. Re .n.r...a-------wn•....w.w------wh...a.---w----w r.►...--.r.--►w:---w►rt- I�713.5 (i4iv A�a request by Glenn Chileotenfor approval to increase a 4,800 sq. ft retail store to 10,030 sq. ft.with accompanying parking and landscape improvements. The site is located at 16130 S.VV Iloones Ferry Road (Tax Lot 4St)0 of Tax Map 2 IE 8C11). Robert Galante discussed the background on the proposal. Re explained themodifications proposed by the applicant. Mr, Galante discussed compliance with the applicable criteria and noted that the proposal would allow for a greater amount of parking. Staff recommended approval with conditions. W x DRB Mitmte; 7/16190 Page 1 of 3 The Board asked staff about the fence. Mr. Galante explained that there was an existing fence, which the applicant proposed to maintain, The fence is along the rear access drive. The original approval addressed a chain link fence,which was erected on the site without "' City approval. The applicant plans to remove that fence in compliance with Board direction, at the last meeting. Therefore, it is no longer a condition because it is not shown to be part of the proposal. APPlicant Glenn Chilcote,A.I.A., j21.2,5.,' Ferry Rotrd,JLake.kingo,a2iL 5 presented Exhibits l 3(a—b)to the Board. Mr. Chilcote stated that the applicant requested the expansion due to lack of space. In order to maintain business the applicant must utilize the site to its fullest extent. This would give the applicant better ability to compete with some of the larger businesses in the area. Mr, Chilcote discussed the improvements that are proposed for the site. He mentioned that the applicant was in agreement with the conditions of approval, with exception to conditions number one and three. He stated that the applicant needed 10,000 square feet. Mr. Chilcote noted that taking five feet from the front of the building would result in the loss of 250 square feet, The applicant proposes to have a single tube of florescent lighting,all the way around the building, behind the four foot fascia to light the building. There would be a silk fabric over this with the name of the business painted on; therefore eliminating the need for additional signage and lighting. Qpnt_t: Miltoriltoo 1,4387 Sunset Drive,Lake_Q53/el o, 7035 was concerned about the neighborhood character,additional traffic on the access road and on Bryant Road, He .:: was opposed to an increase in the building size, He also expressed doubt regarding the ability of delivery trucks to maneuver on the site. Mr, Milton commented on the noise generated by deliveries and construction. Chairman Foster asked for testimony from the audience neither in favor nor opposed to the project, Hearing none, he called for rebuttal, Rebuttal GlennChilcute emphasized that the expansion of the hardware store was to better serve the neighborhood customers. He stated that it was not the intent of the applicant to draw regionally. Mr. Chilcote stated that the applicant was working with staff to attempt to solve some of the traffic problems in the area. Mr. Galante stated that the zone was a General Commercial zone that was unrestricted, not a Neighborhood Commercial zone. He noted that there were provisions in the Code regulating hours of construction. The Board questioned Mr. Galante about the presence of a fence along the rear access road. Mr. Galante noted that there was an existing fence along the south side of the rear access drive. The Board asked if the City Traffic Engineer had reviewed the proposal for maneuverability of delivery trucks on site. Mr,Galante stated that it had been reviewed for large trucks, garbage trucks and fire trucks. Staff finds that it has more than the minimum 45 ft,outside wheel radius that would be necessary for most trucks. DRII Minutes 7/l6 0 0 Page 2 of 3 Deliberation The Board agreed with staff that the back—lighted fabric fascia and awnings with signage k" ; was not complementary to the building itself, to adjacent buildings or to the residential neighborhood. The applicant's testimony,that lighting would be by one fluorescent tube and that the extra lighting would help with parking lot security,did not convince the Board that the lighting was necessary. The Board agreed that additional lighting could be • added in the parking lot in conformance with condition number 2. Mr.Stanaway ntoved for approval off At (Mod.5-901.. Mr.Starr seconded and the motion passed with Mr.Sievert,Mr. Stanaway,Mr.Foster,Ms, Remy and.Mr.Starr all voting yes. VII. OTHER BUSINESS—Findings,Conclusions and Order Ms. Remy moved for approval of pp 2-90-789 Findings, Conclusions and Order (second vote). Mr. Starr seconded and the motion passed with Mr.Foster,Ms. Remy and Mr. Starr all voting yes. Mr. Sievert and Mr. Stanaway abstained. Mr.Poster moved for approval of P'D 4-90-79(l Findings,Conclusions and Order (second vote). Ms. Remy seconded and the motion passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr. Foster and Ms. Remy all voting yes. Mr. Sievert and Mr.Starr abstained, VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Development Review Board, the meeting adjourned at 9;15 p.m. 0 Respectfully Submitted, 6/14 • 44_ ''''' I/ At ,,,,e/h k4,..di Barbara Anderson ti„ism Secretary Inn1190)4a Minute007 VO DRB Minutes 7/1099 0 Page 3 of 3 4' CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4//�'I 0 PLANNING COMMISSION/DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 130A t,,,, .. MINUTES y. Workshop July 9, 1990 5; CALL TO ORDER The joint Planning Commission/Development Review Board workshop of July 9, /990 was called to order at 6:12 p.m. IL ROLL CALL Commission members present were Mr. Beebe, Ms. Finnigan, Mr. DeLacy,Ms, Brockman, Mr. Oldham,Mr. Rohrer and Mr.Garten, Board members present were Mr. Bloomer, Mr. Starr and Mr.Foster. Also present were Sandra Korbelik, Senior Planner;Ted Schneider, Redevelopment Director:Robert Galante, Acting Planning Director; Catherine Clark, Associate Planner; Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney; and Kathy Avery, Senior Secretary, III. GENERAL PLANNING Brief description of code amendments to recognize the East End 410 Redevelopment Plan. Sandra Korbelik discussed the East End Urban Design Plan. She noted that the Urban.Design Plan encompassed an area which was smaller than the Redevelopment boundaries and that staff would like to write language which would encompass the Redevelopment boundaries, She also noted that there was not a clear public review process for amendments to the Urban Design Plan and Staff would like a formal policy. $oard'and Commission members discussed various aspects of the Urban Design Plan. Mr,Foster inquired if there would be a special section in the Code for development on the lake front. Ms. Korbetik noted that the Urban Design Plan called for special treatment for that area, Ms. Brockman inquired if the Urban Design Plan was a guideline or regulatory and Ms. Korbelik responded that it was a guideline. Mr. DeLacy inquired about possible parking problems due to the run of the trolley, Mr.Schneider explained that the trolley would ultimately start and terminate in Portland which would alleviate any possible parking problems; however, the trolley was currently located outside the redevelopment area. Revisions to Wetlands Standard to provide for mitigation. Catherine Clark explained that there were three things that the City would like to accomplish with amendments to the Wetlands Standard, She listed and 0 explained the goals which were to only permit development within wetlands under very limited circumstances; establish mitigation criteria; and to require a wetland buffer zone 7/9/90 PC/DRB Minutes Page l of 3 k Ms. Clark explained that`mitigation, enhancement and monitoring to needed to . 0 be required when development was allowed within wetlands. She also said that when mitigation was allowed,it was important that there be no net loss of area, functions or values. Ms. Clark explained that the Wetlands Standard amendment was initiated by the City Council in 1987 along with other changes needed to the Development Code. She stated that more recently, the City Council directed staff to modify the City standard in accordance with the State regulations to allow for nonwetland dependent structures with mitigation. She discussed several projects in the city where wetlands were a major issue. Mr. Galante noted that the City had to have implementing ordinances which were in conformance with State Goal 5. Proposed code revisions to ensure that building sizes are more proportionate to lot sizes. Sandra Korbelik presented some slides of homes within the city which illustrated the effect of varied yard setbacks and lot sizes. She explained that builders were currently building large homes on small,expensive lots in order to make more money, Mr.DeLacy referred to Goal 10 and noted that the city did not have a supply of affordable homes, Mr. Foster noted that Goal 10 was only in place to create the opportunity for affordable housing. Ms. Korbelik discussed the process of transferring open space density to achieve smaller lots in planned developments, 0 Mr. Bloomer discussed Portland's zoning standard v,,herc the higher a structure gets, the greater the setbacks become and he explained that it better proportions the house to the street or the sideyard. Ms. Korbelik explained that staff was looking at increasing front and side yard setbacks. Mr. Rohrer requested looking at maximum lot coverage and some scaling of front yards to the height of structures. Ms. Brockman suggested that staff look at revising setbacks and lot coverage; not allowing single lot planned developments; and removing roadway easements from the net square footage of a lot. Ms. Brockman stated that infill was also a very high priority, Ordinance draft to require developers to contact neighborhoods. Ms. Korbelik asked for suggestions about when neighborhood contact should occur and who should be contacted. Mr. DeLacy inquired who would pay for the contact and Ms. Korbelik responded that the developer would bear the burden of cost. Ms.Brockman pointed out that it needed to be clear to the public that the early II notification would not give them veto power over the project, it would merely be for their information, 0 7/9/90 PC/0R13 Minutes Page 2 of 1 i Ms. Korbelik distributed a letter from Leonard Stark for the record ' r Ms. Korbelik explained that METRO had been working on goal setting and she passed out their Draft 9 of Regional Goals and Objectives for review. She noted that METRO would be presenting community meetings in August and September and Council was scheduled to vote on the issue in early October, IV, ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the workshop was adjourned at 7.50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathy Avery Senior Secretary kaa 1/24/91 7/9/90PG/DRB Minutes Page 3of3 ' s• CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES July 2, 1990 I. CALL TO ORI)EXi Acting Chair Ginger Remy called the regular Development Review Board meeting of July 2, 1990 to order at 7:30 p.m, in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Board members present were James Bloomer, Harry Starr,Ginger Remy, and Robert Greaves. Robert Foster and Skip Stanaway were excused, Staff members present were Mike Wheeler, Associate Planner; Lynn Bailey, Associate Planner; and Cindy Phillips, Assistant City Attorney; and Barb Anderson,Senior Secretary, III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr,Greaves moved for approval of the January 3, 199IUMunutes, Mr, Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Greaves, Ms. Remy, and Mr, Starr voting in favor, Mr. Bloomer abstained. gip IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC HEARINGS DR 9-90/DR 10-84(Mod. 6-90),a request by VLMK Engineers for approval to construct a 10,000 square foot building to house office and storage for two tenants, Also, a request to modify a condition of approval requiring reciprocal access agreements for shared access from a single location on Pilkington Road for Tax Lots 3500, 3501, 3600 of Tax Map 2 1 l 18B13. The site is located on the west side of Pilkington Road opposite of its intersection with Lakeview Blvd. (Tax Lot 3500 of Tax Map 2 11318BD), Continued from June 4, 1990. Chair Remy discussed the hearing procedures and asked Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none she then opened the public hearing Mike Wheeler,Associate Planner,presented the staff report as written June 22, 1990. lie noted that the site was located opposite the intersection of Lakeview lllvd. and Pilkington Road. He explained that this request modified an earlier condition of approval from 1984 which required reciprocal access to serve the three parcels, including the subject site. He sa41 II id that the applicant believed that that condition was not compatible with the type of use proposed. 41 Development Review Board Minutes Page 1 of 11. July 2, 1990 Mn Wheeler reviewed Exhibit 30 and other exhibits depicting the site,and other sites in the area with which the proposed structure would be eamplementary, He said that staff has recommended that the color band be earned across the frontage and that the lighting be reduced from 2S0 watts to 150 watts to minimize glare, Mr,Wheeler reviewed the staff conditions, including relocating the existing utility pole to tt westerly location. He reviewed the shared access and reciprocal easement issue and refcrreci the Board to the applicant's discussion of the subject, Mr. Wheeler noted that the Pathways Master Plan showed a segment on PPilkington Road but that at this time the path,was not designed, Therefore, staff has required a deposit from the applicant for the purpose of building the path in the future. Mr. Wheeler stated that staff recommended approval of the application with 12 conditions. He reviewed the conditions,u s noted in the staff report, l Ie stated that all the criteria have been addressed either in the application or in the staff conditions, l'LICANT Kim 1MMeMillian,VLMVMK:Engineers,stated that they had no problems with the staff conditions and would incorporate them in further submittals, Mr, °reeves asked what the plans were for the mechanical equipment on top of the building. Mr, McMillian said that they would send those out for design to a contract mechanical ilk engineering arm. Mechanical equipment was typically placed out of sight from the street, INF Mr. Wheeler noted Exhibit 2 which demonstrated that the roof height was sufficient to provide concealment of the meehanieal,equipment. Chair Remy asked the audience if there was anyone wishing to testify regarding the application, No one testified in flavor of the applicaatio;z or opposed, Chair Remy then closed the hearing to public testimony, WAR 1 .1 ►I'1 Mr. Groaves said that he did not see any problem with the application. Staffhas addressed all the criteria and the applicant had indicated that he will comply with the conditions. Mr,Bloomer and Chair Remy concurred with Mr. Greaves'comments. Mr. Bloomer moved for Approval off`OR 9-9 0/DR 1Q-84(I od. 6-90 based upon the findings, reasons and conclusions of the staff report,and subject to the conditions stated in the staff report, Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Greaves Ms, Remy,Mr, Starr and Mr.Bloomer voting in favor. 40 Development Review Board Minutes _ Page 2 of 11 July 2, 1990 jak AP 90-3/SD 5-90, an appeal by the applicant and opponents of the City Manage is decision lap to approve a request by Steve Edwards, Inc. for a minor partition to divide property into two parcels: "Parcel 1" approximately .34 acres; and "Parcel 2" approximately .24 acres. The site is located at 1850 Egan Way (Tax Lot 500 of Tax Map 2 1E 4CD). Chair Remy discussed the hearing procedures and asked Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Hearing none she then opened the public hearing, Lynn Bailey, Associate Planner, presented the staff report written June 22, 1990. She said that staff has had considerable opposition to the City Manager's review and decision regarding this request, noting that it has been appealed by both the applicants and the opponents, She pointed out the discussion of the applicable criteria in the staff report(pages I and 2), Ms, Bailey said that staff performed another site inspection looking at the trees along the east property line,and were concerned that some of those trees might be in the building envelope; those trees would serve as a nice buffer and would reflect the character of other landscaping:n the neighborhood, She said that the applicant has stated that he didn't think he would have to take those trees out but staff suggested that the Board,consider an additional condition for additional setback on that side(pages 10 and 11). She said that staff recommended that the 13oard uphold the City Manager's decision for approval of the partition. Ms; Bailey put into the record the letter in opposition received from Warren Oliver, Jr410 AP i ELLAN Mark Lindley explained that Mr. Edwards,joint applicant with him on the appeal,was no longer a part of this proceedings as the sale of a portion of the property to him has fallen through; Mr. Lindley was the sole owner on record. Mr, Lindley complimented the staff's work on this application. He said that he disagreed with the new condition of partial undergrounciing, which he had not heard of before nor had time to address. He said that he,thought the best place to deal with that was at the building permit level. l'Ie said that he also objected to the condition related to the dedication of 10 feet, and directed the Board to his discussion of the issue in Exhibit 13. Chair Remy asked Mr. Lindley to review the 10 foot dedication. Mr.Lindley stated that it was unlikely that there would be any more development on Egan Way(a dead end street)which meant that the street would probably not be developed at all. He said that if it were developed, it would require the taking of property with mature trees and retaining walls already in place which he thought was not reasonable, He said that requiring dedication of property to the potential use of the City when it was not likely to be required was unreasonable. Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 11 July 2, 1990 Nick Johnson, 14521 SW Uplands, stated that his property,due south,would be most affected by the construction of a new residence, He said that he chose to live in the Uplands area because of the neighborhood character, He commented that he understood that Council was considering a policy regarding infili in established neighborhoods and suggested that this might be a premature decision on this issue. Mr. Johnson said that this lot size was substantially smaller than those la the neighborhood& He said that he was not clear how a lot that was half the average lot size maintained the character of the area. He contended that with the setbacks it would appear that it was shoved right up against the adjoining house, Jerry Bischoff, 1876 Egan Way, introduced into evidence a plat prepared by and obtained from staff that showed the approximate location of the trees(Exhibit 25), Ms. Bailey clarified that the sketch was not done by staff but was drafted by the applicant, staff did not submit it into evidence because:it was not a tree survey, Mr, 13ischoff said that he agreed with Ms. Bailey that no decision could be made until the trees were considered, He pointed out that six feet of a sewer casement was oil that property and affected the setbacks. He said that he supported Mr. Lindley's position on not requiring the 10 foot setback, glit Mr, Bischoff disagreed with the premise in the staff report that the Code required consideration of general conformity for improvements to the area. Ile eked the Code policy requiring maintenance of the aesthetic character end distinct community identity and settle of Lake Oswego and a policy requiring maintenance of the livability of existing residential neighborhoods, He noted that these lots ran from oncµthird acre to two acres; all the houses, except one, were split level. Mr, Bischoff said that they were told that Mr, Edwards proposed a two story house to justify the price but that he has since dropped out of the proceedings, leaving the neighbors wondering what another developer would do, He said that they were not opposed to building a house there that was consistent with the general style and atmosphere of the neighborhood with appropriate setbacks and square footage that would not conflict with the character of the neighborhood, Mr. Bischoff reviewed the trees on the property, noting that they ran from 20 feet tall to 50 to 60 feet tall and were mostly fir trees. He said that they agreed with staffs recommendation that nothing be done without an arborist's study and a tree plot plan, Marian O'Connor, 19541 Egan Way,reviewed the history of the development of the neighborhood,noting that it was originally zoned suburban residential, She said that most people moved there to have enough land to keep their horses and live in a country manner while living in the City. She said that the proposed site was swampy and took drainage from Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 11 July 2, 1990 the land above it to the south, She said that she did not think that that concern has been addressed, Ms, O'Connor confirmed,as she wrote in her letter,that she felt that Mr, Lindley had the right to partition his property under the law but that he should hold off at this time and take some other things into consideration. She said that it was regrettable that the applicants did ; not talk to the neighbors to see if something could be worked out, John Metclheck, 1781 SW Egan Way, spoke to the pleasant character of the Uplands neighborhood with its split level one story homes, He said that he objected to a two story house that would stick out like a sore thumb and take up too much of the lot, He contended that it would not be commiserate with the balance of the other homes and properties in the neighborhood, Jack Meizeck, 1952 SW Egan Way, stated that he opposed, not Mr, Lindley's request for a partition, but his intent to put too large a home on the lot. He contended that a minor partition of Mr, Lindley's lot wasn't capable of carrying a huge home, lie stated that two homes on Mr. Lindley's current property would not only be inconsistent with the neighborhood but an affront to the other neighbors. He spoke for consulting with neighbors prior to development. Bruce Winston, 1870 Egan Way, stated that he called these homes "daylight basement" as opposed to "split level, He entered into the record a booklet of photos of all the houses on Egan Way and Uplands(Exhibit 26), He said that they were disappointed that the staff did alk not require a study by a tree arborist right from the start, He said that the applicant could Mlir potentially cut down nearly all the trees to put in a driveway; he suggested putting the driveway on top of the sewer easement, lie noted that they all had mixed feelings on the 10 foot setback, Mr. Winston noted the letter from Warren Oliver and Mr. Oliver's opinion article in the Lake Oswego Review, He submitted into the record a letter from Richard Parker. He referred to Exhibit 5,the letter he and his wife submitted. He noted that Mr. Lindley's land was originally wetlands, referring to the City's hydrology map, even though no wetlands were visible there today. He asked the Board to take a close look at Mr. Lindley's engineer's report which proposed a drainage swale down the west side of the property line. He stated that the staff hydrologist had previously stated orally that there should be a 12 inch drain tile to take the water completely south of the property line and up the road to a storm sewer vent; all that should be a public easement to avoid damage and to allow City access. Mr. Winston stated that they believed that the basic plan was at fault, He commented that since one of the original applicants was now out of the picture, he thought that the application should be rejected, Mr. Lindley could resubmit his application with a tree survey. He asked who owned the trees along the front of the lot;they would be in the 10 foot setback if that was required by the City. jib Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 11 July 2, 1990 w -4q Chair Remy asked'for testimony from those neither in favor nor opposed. blearing none,she _' �' M 0 then asked Mr. Lindley if he would like rebuttal, Mr, Lindley declined, Chair Remy then ; '? ask if the Board would like to ask staff more questions, • fin et'eft b , 1 r Ear , rc µ ,},• pr Mr. Greaves asked about the procedures for a double application. Mr, Galante explained ' ,, • J ; , that the Board was being asked to rule on a partition that was being brought before them in the form of an appeal, He said that the Board needed to make its decision based on the ,' j ` r evidence in the record and the arguments on that evidence, `� 1 ' " . 4` • 1 Mr.Greaves asked if staff felt that the condition of approval a requiring drainage i ' .,7 improvements was sufficient to address the problems, Ms. Bailey said yes, She noted that ► staff had not originally required the applicant's cngitiecr to look at the drainage coming from •'.,a .,' , '',' up hill; the applicant's engineer did that as reported in Bxhibit B, ', , A „, ' Ma +Greaves asked for confirmation that the requirement for an arborist was necessary for *' A .r 1 approval prior to the building permit but not prior to the approval of the partition Ms. , " .'i ►, Bailey said that staffwas reserving the right to bring in an arborist if they found problems with the site plan during the building permit process with regards to encroaching on trees, '� 'a l.. Chair Remy closed the hearing for board deliberation, t„ t BOARD DELIBERATION},t� ,Y),+c, ' •' rt o. pCity Manager's the exception , •r,,,��,�� 0 Mr, Greaves said that he would uphold the Mttnct Ter ti decision with :t,xce flea of protecting all the trees on the east side to preserve the buffer effect,even if that meant i 1-' ., slightly increasing the setback, He commented that if a tree had to be removed, they could , require a replacement tree be planted in the setback area to maintain as much of the r,, vegetative screening as possible. ,AA, x ,.,M Mr, Greaves stated that he agreed with.the need for an mtiiiil standard but that the Board had ' ° ` r w no choice but to hear the application based on the laws in effect at the tune of the .`" „` y;4, application, Ile said that citizens needed to voice their opinions during the process for ,:,,•,` x deternnining those infill standards, , „ I. , Mr,Greaves said that he felt that the applicant has demonstrated that he has met the w . • , minimum criteria as stated in the law right now. He agreed that the swampy land could be a problem but held that it was adequately addressed in the conditions of approval, He said that ,•• staff would also enforce an arborist's recommendations regarding the trees prior to issuing a hh 4; j 4' building permit. He said that the fact that Mr.Lindley was now the sole applicant was • ,•;,:".A`'.• irrelevant and did not change anyof the issues. r Mr.Greaves noted that the law clearly allowed the City as a condition of approval for a ri',),,r'* planned improvement to take the land;_it was not a''takings" as contended by Mr, Lindley, =' 44 He said that he would add one condition of approval,an additional setback to preserve the tree,'on the east side, -`4,', ), .=r, • , 4. 40 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 11 '; July 1990 • y,. i • } • Mr, Bloomer concurred with Mr. Greaves' comments and the additional condition of approval. Mr;Greaves asked for staffs input on framing the condition of approval regarding the setback for the trees; should they increase the setback along the east boundary to protect the trees or should they require replacement trees for each tree cut down? Mr. Galante recommended increasing the setback to preserve the existing trees. Mr, Greaves said that he favored the increased setback for the express purpose of preserving trees on the eastern boundary line, and that the applicant be required to work`with the staff and the arborist to set what the necessary setback requirement would be to protect each of the trees on the eastern boundary line. Mr. Starr concurred with Mr, Greaves An audience member asked if increasing the setback another 10 feet didn't reduce the size of the lot to a substandard lot, Mr, Greaves agreed but explained that the stall would do lot line adjustments to get all the setbacks in and still hold to the minimum lot size. lie stated that he would not support a variance on this request but that he did not think one was necessary, Mr, Galante stated that procedurally the Board could make a modification to bring the lot up to the minimum lot size, He said that in this meeting the Board was approving the preliminary plat; staff always made modifications on preliminary plats to meet rights of way Ali requirements and to preserve trees where they could, He said that staff then reviewed the final plat that set the finial lot dimensions. Mr, Greaves moved for approval of AP 90-3/SD 5-90 with one that a condition be added to require the applicant to work with an arborist and City staff to set a sufficient setback requirement on the eastern boundary line to preserve trees that were currently there for a suffer strip, Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Greaves, Ms. Remy,Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer voting in favor, D 54-89/VAR 41-89, a request by CBJ Construction for approval to partition Tax Lot 500 into three lots. The applicant is also requesting two 25 foot Class II variances to the 25 foot lot frontage requirement for two of the proposed lots. The site is located on the south side of Lower Drive on the west side of Sunnygrove Condominiums (Tax Let 500; Lot 52 Bryant Acres of Tax Map 2 .iB 18AA), Chair Remy discussed the bearing procedures and asked Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none she then opened the public hearing, Lyun Bailey,Associate Planner, presented the staff report written June 22, 1990. She stated that this wnu a straight forward request except for the variances, She recommended approval subject to the conditions listed on pages 9 and 10, She confirmed that all the Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 of i i July 2, 1990 criteria have been addressed in the conditions, She noted that the application has been pending for some time. Mr. Greaves asked if there was a problem with emergency access in this kind of configuration. Mr. Galante said that they checked with the are department who said that they would fight a fire from the street. The only criteria for ambulances was proper addressing at the public street so the ambulance could locate the address. APJ' ,1:CANT. Ben Johnson, CBI Construction Company Owner,stated that he was willing to comply with all the conditions and do whatever was necessary to make the development possible, He noted their response to the parking concerns, He stated that they haven't had negative feedback from the apartments next door;the residents were glad that the development would be houses,not apartments Mr,Greaves asked how Mr.Johnson proposed to label the guest parking to prevent guests from plugging up the driveways of residents, Mr. Johnson stated that they would use signage indicating private parking down below, Mr, Greaves asked about the landscaping along the driveway, Mr,Johnson reviewed their plans, including trees, rhododendrons and barkdust. They also have tried to circle the driveway. He said that they would leave part of it in its natural state, AK Mr. Grooves asked if itwas passible to avc the 8 it ch cedar, Mr. Johnson said that that cedar was dead half way up and not worth salvaging; there was another cedar,however, that they would save. Mr.Greaves commented that this proposal presented a heavy emphasis on asphalt, :ind suggested adding some additional vegetation along the driveway to help soften the effect leading into three homes. Mr.Johnson said that they could do that. There were no proponents,opponents, or individuals neither in favor or opposed. Mr,Greaves asked for staffs opinion about the presentation of the driveway in the front. Ms. Bailey said that they did not think about it because they were not applying design standards;personally she agreed with Mr. Greaves' suggestion to soften they access with more vegetation. Chair Remy closed the hearing for l3oard deliberation, Mr.Bloomer asked if the driveway could change from the lot configuration on the map, Ms. Bailey said no, it would be constructed as shown. f) Development Review Board Minutes page 8 of l l July 2 1990 I .: 410 Mr.Greaves stated that he found that the applicant has addressed all the criteria for a variance, and that he concurred with the staff recommendations, He said that he favored adding an additional conditionthat the applicant work with staff to add appropriate vegetation to soften the driveway entrance, Chair Remy and Mr. Starr concurred, Mr, Bloomer moved for gpprovalof SD 54-89/VAR 41-89 subject to the conditions stated in the staff report, and also adding the condition of working with City staff in adding landscaping. Mr, Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Greaves,Ms, Remy,Mr. Starr and Mr,Bloomer all voting yes, DR 10-90, a request by Lake Oswego School District 7,1 for approval for two(2)portable classrooms for Bryant Elementary School. The site is located at 4750 Jean Road(Tax Lot 100 of Tax Map 2 1E 18). Chair Remy discussed the hearing procedures and asked Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none she then opened the public hearing. Lynn Dailey,Associate Planner, presented the staff report written June 22, 1990. She noted that the Planning Commission did not hear the conditional use portion of this request di last week due to lack of a quorum; it has been rescheduled to July 9, She pointed out that staff found that the proposed structures did not meet the City's design standards, though the applicant has explored alternative locations for the portables. She said that because the structures were temporary and required by the school district to provide adequate services,. the buildings could be made to meet the design standards with conditions requiring landscape buffering and removal of the structures after two years. Ms. Philvp4 commented that they would have to add the condition to approve this contingent on the Planning Commission granting the conditional use approval. In response to questions from the Board, Ms, Bailey explained that while the structures met the building code standards,their design was not complimentary to the surrounding architecture which was why staff was recommending screening. She confirmed that these were the same portables currently housed at Uplands. She noted that the portables would be in view from Jean Road. AreLICANT Dick Thomas,Assistant School Superiintendent, stated that they wished to relocate two existing portables from Uplands Elementary School to Bryant Elementary School to relieve overcrowding in the classrooms. He said that they did not foresee needing them more than a year because of'the opening of at new school in September 1991 and the present remodeling oi'thcir current buildings. He presented some sketches showing the location of the portables 41) Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 11 July 2, 1990 in relation to the school(Exhibit 1I). He reviewed the problems with other locations around I tip the school building, noting that there was only one logical place to put them, In response to Board questions,Mr.Thomas said that they would do whatever was necessary to make the transition as clean as possible and that they would comply with all the recommendations. Mr. Greaves asked if Mr. Thomas,had any comments in response to Mr. Sutton's letter, Mr. Thomas stated that the district did not like using portables as they were not conducive to classes, They have tried to blend them in with the surroundings in terms of color and that they would provide whatever vegetative buffer was necessary to hide the buildings. There were no proponents, opponents, or individuals neither in favor or opposed. Chair Remy closed the hearing for Board deliberation, BOARAJ E dBERATION Mr. Greaves suggested changing the two year requirement listed by staff to a one year requirement sincethat was all the district wanted. Ms. Bailey concurred. Mr:Greaves commented that the Board has never been happy with the design ,standards of the portables but felt that they would be adequate for limited periods of time in order to allow the school district to provide an adequate education for the children. lie said that he Ali didn't think this Board felt any different, He said that he concurred with staffs Wit recommendation for landscape buffering to hide the buildings from Jean Road, Mr. Bloomer stated that he concurred with all staff recommendations. Mr. Starr moved for approval ofl)R 10-90,with the compliance of staff recommendations 1 through,4,with 4 being the Planning Commission approval,and altering Condition 3 to through the 1990/9.1 school year, Mr, Bloomer seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Graves, Ms.Remy, Mr, Starr and Mr Bloomer voting in favor. VI. GENERAL, PLANNING VI. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings„Conclusions and Order DR 5-90/VAR.12-90 -MKF International Chair Remy moved inns.eoneJt1s1sonnintl order tsf l)R 5-90;Vr1lt 12-90.791, Mr, Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Greaves,Ms, Remy,Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer voting in favor. 40 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 of l i July 2, 1990 6 PD 2-90-ACE Partners i Remythought commented that she thou ht the discussion of the Board had been to have somebody onsite full time during the critical grading and filling process, She said that she didn't feel that the language in 18A quite said that. Mr, Greaves suggested adding "shall be present continuously at critical grading," Chair Remy concurred. Mr. Greaves commented that in their discussion they had made it clear that if the applicant removed any trees', he had to put them back, The Board and staff directed him to the relevant sections addressing that issue, Mr. Greaves suggested specifying that the intent was to create a vegetative screening for the neighbors,and not to plant those trees just anywhere on tht#property, I le suggested saying "for each tree removed, in accordance with approved grading plan,a new tree shall be planted in the immediate vicinity within the same setback," Ms. Bailey asked where someone would put a replacement tree for a tree that was in the middle of a square building envelope, if the replacement tree had to be In the same setback. Mr.Greaves commented that in this application,all the trees of concern were along one side of the property. He said that one could simply replant a new tree in the same vicinity as the one being removed and still be within the setback of the building envelope, Ms.Bailey noted that the Board could only do a first reading tonight and suggested that staff' IMF come back with plot maps to delineate carefully exactly what the Board wanted in this condition, Mr, Greaves concurred, The Board agreed to table this item until the next meeting, PO 4-90- Petrie Mr. Greaves moved for approval otPD 490-790,jindings,eoncluaion ,stud aide,as presented. Mr. Bloomer seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Greaves,Ms.Retn.y and Mr. Bloomer voting in favor, Mr, Starr abstained. VII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Remy adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. fa) Development Review Board Minutes Page 1 1 of 11, July 2, 1990 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 18,1990 Ap-ilawEl I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Robert H,Foster called the regular Development Review Board meeting of June 18,1990 to order at 7:00 pan, in the City Council.Chambers, IL ROLL CALL Members present included Robert Foster,Ginger Remy,James Bloomer, Robert Creaves,Skip Stanaway,and Elaine Sybrowsky. Staff present included Robert Galante, Acting Planning Director;Hamill Pishvaie, Development, Review Planner; Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner;Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney;and Barbara Anderson,Secretary, ITT. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUOLIC HEARINGS ill DR 5-90/VAR 12-90, Deliberations Chair Foster read the hearing title and reviewed the hearings criteria, STAFF REPORT Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner, reported that the Board had completed the public testimony on May 31 and entered into Board deliberations, He noted the May 31, 1990 memo in which staff analyzed the three issuea of concern to the Board. These were the applicant's presentation of comparison of the site to like properties to determine what constituted a reasonable use of the site,whether or not the proposal adequately addressed erosion control measures in the areas with an excess of 50% slope, and whether or not the variance requested from the hillside standard was the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the site. Mr, Wheeler recommended approval of the application and variances. Chair Foster closed the hearing for board deliberations. Development Review Board Minutes Page 1 of 9 1111, June 18,1990 BOARD DELIBERATIONS Chair Foster stated that he found everything in order regarding the three issues discussed in the memo. He said that he found this a good soiutim to a difficult site. Chair Foster moved for approval of DR 590EV'AR 12-90(a-b) and the conditions of the analysis found in the staff report dated May 11,1.990 as amended by the exhibits and analysis found in the memo dated May 31,1990 (pages 18-19 in staff report) and by the deliberations of this Board. The motion was seconded, A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Stanaway,Sybrowsky,Foster; Remy, and Bloomer voting in favor; Greaves abstained, TR-290, a request by Timothy Walters for approval to remove three trees, The site is located at 18462 Anduin Terrace, on,the west side of Anduin Terrace and is the third lot north of Westview Drive (Tax Lot 153 of Tax Map 2 1J 17DD), Continued from May 7,1990. This item was withdrawn. DR 4-90, a request by Yakligh &Assoc.,Inc. The applicant is requesting approval to remodel the existing residence into two units(upper and lower). Also,a request to construct eight(8) additional units for a total of ten(10) rental units, The site is located at 3500 SW Carman Drive (Tax Lot 4200 of Tax Map 2 IE 5CD and Tax Lot 5700 of Tax Map 21,E 5DC). Continued from June 4,1990, This item was postponed. PI)4-90, a request by Craig A. Petrie for approval of a 5-lot planned development, The,site is located at the southwest corner of Boca Ratan and Atwater Road (Tax Lots 100 &1200 of Tax Maps 2 IE 4DA &3CB). Chair poster read the hearing title and criteria. He asked the Board to declare any ex parte contacts; none were declared, STAFF REPORT Hamid Pishvaie,Associate Planner, presented the staff report written June 8,1990, He distributed Exhibits No. 13.18. I j Ai Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 of NW June 18, 1990 Chair Poster reviewed the hearing procedures and time limits, Mr. Pishvaie reviewed the exhibits, pointing out that they were identical form letters submitted by diverse people. Mr Pishvaie reviewed the specifics of the application. He said that the lot sizes ranged from 14,300 sq.ft, to 23,000 sq. ft. on two tax lots approved for annexation by the Boundary Commission on May 3,1990, He stated that the land had significant natural resources including Iron Mountain Creek (DNA #11), a woody ravine (DNA#17), and several pockets of wetlands in the ravine; both these features were proposed to be preserved in their entirety in the dedicated open space tract. Mr. Pishvaie stated that the applicant has worked very cooperatively with staff and that this project had no outstanding issues. He pointed out that the open space in the project measured 32% of the total site area;with the addition of the conservation easements,proposed in Exhibit 5, the open space measured over 50% of the total site area. He said that staff recommended the expansion of the conservation easement along Lots 3 and 4,widening Tract A to provide greater protection for the upper trees in the ravine and the understory vegetation along Atwater Road;the applicant agreed with the recommendation. Mr,Pishvaie reviewed the issue regarding the provision of sidewalks along the perimeter of the project along Atwater. He said that the applicant could either fill in the gaps in the existing sidewalk along the north side of Atwater or build a rtew sidewalk on the south side of Atwater, He stated that one of the conditions of approval stated that the final location of the sidewalk would be determined by the City Engineer once all relevant information was received and evaluated, Mr. Pishvaie said that the applicant has agreed to pay an "in-lieu of" pathway fee for the area along the East property line, Mr. Pishvaie reviewed the project access from Atwater and a private driveway (Exhibit 5), He said that the project provided four solar lots which met the solar access standard, He stated that staff found that the project as designed met both the R-7,5 and R-10 zone requirements, Mr,Pishvaie recommended approval of the application with the 25 conditions of approval. Mr.Pishvaie reported that the applicant has requested an additional condition of approval,to place deed restrictions on Lots 1-4 prohibiting further subdivision of the lots (Exhibit 13), He said that he was neutral about the request and that it was the Board's prerogative to impose the condition or not Ali Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 9 Mr June 18,1990 { In response to a question from Chair Foster,Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney, lip stated that a deed restriction or covenant in a subdivision could only be changed upon getting the approval of all the other property owners, Mr. Pishvaie said that imposing deed restrictions has occurred in the past and explained the two methods of accomplishing it: imposing it as a condition of approval or discussing it in the findings. He noted that tonight the Board was approving a specific density for the project which he believed did have some built in protections in the approval, He explained that if someone wanted to partition his lot in the future, he would have to come to the DRB for approval', In response to questions from Chair Foster, Mr Pishvaie said that Lot 5 would be switched from a septic system to the public sewer, Mr. Greaves asked if there was a problem with running the proposed easement across the proposed greenway. Mr. Pishvaie said that there might be some detention but noted that the applicant was required as a condition of approval to submit a restoration plan for any areas disturbed by the project, including the storm sewer line running along the road. He confirmed that the reason for running the easement through the open space was that that was the shortest distance. In response to a question from Ms.Sybrowsky,Mr. Pishvaie confirmed that the property was located next to a City property of 2.5 acres purchased about 8 years ago. He pointed out that the proposed open space would connect to the City property. He said that the Parks Department did not currently have any plans to develop the area, though he thought it provided an opportunity for the City to do something there;currently there was no pathway. APPLICANT Craig Petrie,1320 SW Peters Road,applicant, explained that the sewer line ran across the open space because of the topography; the other location for the line would rt.:fuire the installation of a sewer pump. He said that while he realized that the deed restriction was an unusual request,he had told the neighbors that he would do so and he wanted to keep his word. Mr.Petrie stated that his primary guideline in designing this project was whether or not the project fit into the character of the neighborhood. He said that he thought it fit in very well, as maximum density would not be in the character of the neighborhood. He noted that he worked closely with the neighborhood and the City to create a partnership to achieve what would be best for everyone. In response to a question from Chair Foster, Mr, Petrie said that he did.not have a problem with the condition requiring expansion of the conservation easement, Aft Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 411. June 18,1990 J1 In response to a question from Mr. Greaves,Mr.Pishvaie reviewed the property lines on Lots 3 and 4. In response to a question from Chair Foster, Mr. Pishvaie explained that current site plan inaccurately showed the setbacks; a condition of approval was a revised site plan. Mr.Petrie noted that staff had imposed stricter conditions than his proposal and that he agreed with staff's recommendation. PROPONENTS Elizabeth Luthy,623 SW Atwater,Forest Highland Neighborhood Association representative,spoke in support of imposing the deed,restrictions, She said that if the Board did so, then the neighborhood would support the development. She stated that the Association enjoyed working with Mr; Petrie and would like their interaction to serve as a model for future developer/neighborhood interactions. She said that they felt it was essential for the DRB to honor the request regarding the deed restriction in order to reassure the Association, noting that density was a concern. In response to a question from Ms. Sybrowsky, Ms, Luthy said that the lot sizes varied in the neighborhood from a quarter of an acre to five acres, She commented that Forest Highlands was still a rural community. IMP Charles Brewer,1104 SW Forest Meadow, stated that he thought Mr, Petrie's proposal was positive for the neighborhood. He said that;there were one acre deed restrictions on Forest Meadow which consistently have proven to help preserve the rural nature of the neighborhood. Michael.Brouhard,620 Atwater Road,commented that adjacent to Mr, Petrie's property was 12 acres of open space; the neighborhood would prefer to see no development of that area butt understood that that was an unrealistic goal, Therefore the neighbors encouraged responsible development,such as Mr. Petrie has done. He said that he fully supported the request for the deed restrictions, commenting that this density was appropriate to the neighborhood for the schools and the road,whereas more density would not be appropriate. Michael Caplan,623 Atwater Road, commented that Mr.Petrie's property was a unique and beautiful area and a part of the heritage of the neighborhood. He said that the neighborhood supported the deed restrictions as a means of protecting the agreement between the neighborhood and the developer to develop the property in character with the neighborhood. He asked that the Board honor Mr,Petrie's request to insure that his intentions would be carried out, Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 9 June 18,1994 REBUTTAL Mr.Petrie noted'that the PublicWorks department has told him that astop •i sgn was going'in on Atwater at Boca Ratan, He reported that the annexation of the lots has been accepted, as the 45 day waiting period was up yesterday. Mr. Bloomer asked what drove the lot size, Mr, Petrie said that the lot size was driven by consideration of what density fit in with the neighborhood and the teamwork between himself,staff and the neighborhood to find something that everyone was comfortable with, In response to a question from Mr. Greaves regarding emergency services access on the private drive, Mr.Pishvaie said that staff checked on that with the fire department; the fire department has no problem with it because the street was under 150 feet long, Mr. Bloomer raised a concern regarding achieving sufficient densities in the town as a whole, Mr. Galante explained that Lake Oswego was required by the state to provide the opportunity for a density of 10 units per acre but that if they did not achieve that density because of site conditions or the market, they would not be penalized, He said that staff had a variety of Comprehensive Plan criteria for conditions of density that they tried to meet,pointing out that some of the criteria related to preservation of the neighborhood character. III Mr. Galante said that he thought that the Board could construe that they were well within the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan in approving this project or similar projects, He said that staff recognized the significant traffic problems in the community and the concern about open space. Chair Foster closed the hearing for board deliberations. BOARD DELIBERATIONS Ms.Sybrowsky stated that while she found this a nice development, she did have some hesitation regarding the deed restriction and its affect on future property owners. Mr.Pishvaie said that once the lots were created, the applicant could on his own record any deed restrictions he wanted. He noted the evidence in the record where the applicant said that he would do so, Chair Foster said that he was leery of the deed restrictions also. Mr.Galante suggested a compromise if the Board was uncomfortable with conditioning the development with a deed restriction. He said that the Board could j Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of June 18,1990 4.: make a finding taking notice of the applicant's indication that he would be applying for a deed restriction on the density of the development. While doing so was not specifically binding, it did mean that people would not forget that the deed restriction existed, and staff would instruct prospective developers to check the deed because the findings indicated a deed restriction on the property. Mr.Creaves stated that he did not have a problem with imposing a deed restriction as a condition because he saw a logical basis for the condition- preserving the unique features of the site..and because doing so would send the right message to the neighborhoods that the Board respected teamwork between the developer and the neighborhood. He said that people had the option to purchase or not purchase the property once they knew of the deed restriction, Mr.Stanaway concurred. Mr.Bloomer said that he did have a problem with including the deed restriction. Ms,:Phillips explained that imposing a deed restriction as a condition of approval meant that anyone wishing to remove the restriction not only had to get the approval of all the other property owners of the parcel but also had to got DRB approval. Mr. Bloomer said that he thought this was a good development but that he found Aim the density issue bothersome. Ms. Remycommented on the fine job the developer did in working with the neighbohood and expressed her ope that it would;set an example of resolving problems before they came to the DRB. Regarding the sidewalk issue, she asked that the existing north side sidewalk be filled in as opposed to building a new sidewalk on the south side. She said that while she did not have a strong concern one -0-.7 or another on the deed restriction,she was generally in favor of it. x'aster reopened the public hearing to receive public testimony when Mr. Caplin commented that the Board did not have complete information regarding the sidewalk. Michael Caplin,623 At-water Road,stated that City surveyors discovered today that there was a jog in the property line at the end of the existing north-side sidewalk. He said that the sidewalk would either have to jog or the City would have to purchase right of way. He reported that Mr. Pishvaie said that the City probably would not be interested in either the jog irithe sidewalk or the purchase of laIn response to a question from Ms Remy, Mr.Caplin said that he understood that the existing sidewalk portions were on City property, Mr.Pishvaie reviewed the ft Development Review Board.Minutes Page 7 of 9 wr June 18, 199 options for a north side sidewalk, including a meandering sidewalk or purchase of 411) right of way. He said that it would be easier to put a sidewalk in on the south side; that was why he left it open for the City Engineer to make the determination once all the information was in, Mr, Caplin stated that he supported Mr, Greaves' comment that not making the deed,restriction a condition of approval sent the wrong message to the community, in response to a question from Chair Foster,Mr, Petrie stated that he would work with the City Engineer to resolve the sidewalk issue, He said that he was happy II with a sidewalk on the south side of the street, and reviewed some problems with a sidewalk on the north side of the street, Mr, Pishvaie said that if staff could put a sidewalk in on the north side, then they would do so. Chair Foster closed hearing for board deliberations. BOARD DELIBERATIONS Chair Foster stated that he was in favor of the project and restricting the subdivision by condition of approval, Ms. Remy moved for approval of PI)4.90 in accordance with the conditions as stated in the staff report,and imposing the condition of a deed restrictions prohibiting subdivision of Lots 1-4,and the condition that the sidewalk be placed on the north side if possible pet determination by the City Engineer, The motion I was seconded, A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Stanaway, Greaves, Foster, and Remy voting in favor;Sybrowsky and Bloomer voted against the motion. VI. GENERAL PLANNING VI OTHER BUSINESS -Findings,Conclusions and Order DR 7M90-Lake Oswego School District Chair Foster moved to adopt the findings,conclusions and order for DR 7-90, Ms. Remy seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with. Foster,Remy, Bloomer,Stanaway and Sybrowsky voting in favor;Greaves abstained. )0. Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of June 15,199 Auk SD 12-90/VAR 9-90-Douglas B.Wilkins The Board discussed the findings. Mr.Galante noted a change on No. 1.0. He explained to Ms, Remy that her and Mr,Starr's position was not included in the findings because the Board has never asked staff to include minority opinions, Mr. Stanaway moved to adopt the findings,conclusions and order for SD 12 90/VAR 9.90, Ms. Sybrowsky seconded and the motion passed with Stanaway, Sybrowsky, Foster,Greaves,Remy, and Bloomer voting in favor, PD 3-90/SD 57-89-John Kyle Mr. Greaves moved for approval of the findings,conclusions and order for PD 3- 90/SD 57-89, The motion was seconded, A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Stanaway,Sybrowsky,Foster, Greaves and Remy voting in favor; Bloomer abstained. PD 1-90-Land Development Consultants, Inc. Mr.Greaves noted some corrections to the findings which staff recorded, Chair Foster moved for approval of the findings, conclusions and order for PD 1- 90, Ms.Remy seconded and the motion passed with Stanaway,Sybrowsky,Foster, Greaves and Remy voting in favor; Bloomer abstained. DR 8-90-Westover Properties dba Lakeshore Motel Hotel Ms. Remy moved for approval of the findings,conclusions and order for DR 8-90, Ms,Sybrowsky seconded the motion, A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Stanaway,Sybrowsky, Foster,Greaves and Remy voting in favor; Bloomer abstained, VII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Foster adjourned the meeting, gh Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 9 Mr June 18,1990 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ,';,''g, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 13,1990 Alp p 14161E0 I, CALL TO ORDER Chair Robert Poster called the regular Development Review Board meeting of June 13,1990 to order at 7:30 p.m, in the City Council Chambers, IL ROLL CALL Members present included Harry Starr,Ginger Remy,Bob Foster,Robert Greaves, and Elaine Sybrowsky. Staff present included Robert Galante, Acting Planning Director;Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner;Catherine Clark, Associate Planner; Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney;and Barbara Anderson,Secretary, HI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Remy moved for approval of the January 3,1990 regular meeting mir►utes. Mr.Starr seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Sybrowsky,Greaves, Foster,Remy,and Starr voting in favor. ''' IV, PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS-.None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS DR 5-90/VAR 12-90,a request by MKF International for approval of 14 multiple family dwellings in two (2) duplex, two (2) three-plex and one (1.) four-pleax, structures;also, the applicant is requesting approval of two variances as follows' a) A Class II variance to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard which requires that land over 50 percent slope shall be developed only where density transfer is not feasible[DS 16,020(7)1; b) A Class II variance to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard to exceed the minimum 70% area free of structures and impervious surfaces[DS 16,020(7)1. The applicant proposes to construct multiple family dwellings on land in excess of 50% slope, The applicant suggests that density transfer is not feasible. The site is located west of i3otticeiii,north of Melrose Street(Tax Lot$400 of Tax Map 21E 513C). Continued from May 21, 1990. ilk Development Review Board Minutes Page 1 of 17 Mr June 13,1990 i Ms.Renyy moved to continue DR 5-90/VAR 12-90 to June 18,1990, Ms, Sybrowsky ;;,, seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Sybrowsky,Greaves,Poster,Remy,and Starr voting in favor, }---- ----- ------------ - - -- PD 2-90 (789),a request by ACE partners for approval for a 4-lot planned development, The site is located south of Country Club Road and east of Dolph Court(Tax Lots 5300 &5400 of Tax Map 2 1E 4CA), Continued from Tune 4,19904 j for rebuttal and Board deliberation, Chair Foster discussed the hearing procedures and timelines for testimony. He asked the Board to declare any conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. Hearing none, he then opened the public hearing for rebuttal. REBUTTAL Lewis Moller,representing Ace Partners, directed attention to his written summary of the neighbors'concerns and the applicant's response which he presented to the Board. He acknowledged the difficuz., and sensitivity of the site and cited the numerous hours and experts involved in developing the plan for the site; Mr.Moller said that the site was not overlayed with tires; rather the owner used 1p tires to construct a false culvert around the corner of the property to help control the erosion created by diverting the stream during the construction of Dolph Court, per City direction to control the erosion, He noted that the site was 99,96% dirt fill accumulated over the years, Mr. Moller stated that there were no car batteries on the site nor were the pockets of severe organic decay discovered through the bore samples. Neither was there a vehicle present, He said that they knew they would probably have to put the bridge on pilings and emphasized that the fill was not as loose as portrayed. He explained that the water table was a "perched" water table because of the location of the stream arid water leaking through the loosely compacted dirt, He pointed out that the soils engineer and geologists didn't find the water table to be a problem. Mr,Moller said that the compensated footings were nearly comparable to pilings and were a precaution they were taking to prevent problems with the house. He stated that the slope of the road met the City standards and that they were tightlining the foundation and roof drains into the creek to prevent drainage and erosion problems. He said that the sewer system tank weighed less than the soils and would not sink, Ai Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 of 17 June 13,1990 Mr, Moller noted pictures 27 and 28 showing the trees leaning over the property line-which they proposed removing. Chair roster cited the survey submitted by Mr,Shonkwiler which showed that the trees were not on the property erty, Mr, Moller said that they had the property surveyed twice by a licensed enl, neer;the five trees that they proposed to remove were on their property, and that they could legally trim others not on their property which leaned over the property line. He reviewed the exact location of the trees on the conceptual grading plan Chair Foster asked if they intended to do additional soil borings. Mr.Moller said not at this time because they tested a broad area of soil with five test holes and did not find anything significantly different in the samples. In response to questions from Chair Poster,Mr,Moller said that the perched water table ran from the creek; the water coming from the golf course was shown in picture 26, On the conceptual grading plan he reviewed the drainage system they would install to tight line the drainage from the houses to the creek,and the location of the swales, He said that the soils engineer did not believe it was necessary to install underground drains on the south side of the property, In response to a question from Ms. Remy,Mr. Moiler reviewed the two step sewer system in which the liquids were pumped to the system while the solids were removed every five to six years by a sewage pumping truck, Fre reiterated that the tanks would not sink in the soft soil, In response to a question from Mr.Starr,Mr,Moller stated that they knew that the property was 99,96% dirt because of the boring samples and the owner's supervision of the placement of dirt on the property during his owners1-41 tenure, Charles Lane, Northwest Testing Laboratories, Soils Engineer, reviewed the proposed use of compensated foundation for the structures. He said that tying the beams together was a procedure used frequently in situations like this. He said that they would remove four feet of dirt(400 lbs,per square foot of area)over the gross area of the house,The gross loads that they would put back on the site with construction of the houses would be less than what was taken away (between 100 lbs to 200 lbs load). He said that the water table was well below any of the house foundations, and that he did not see a problem. Mr, Moller explained how the compensated footing worked as a grid,comparing the house on the footing to a houseboat that floated on water. Mr,Lane cited art office structure in johns Landing that used a compensated footing foundation, Mr, Moller pointed out that all the land east of Macadam was fill and all the buildings used either pilings or footings. In response to a question from Ms.Remy, Mr. Lane said that they would not get arty swelling characteristics out of the soils here. He explained that with the gik Development Review Board Minutes Page a of 17 { June 13,1990 } foundations tied together it was unlikely that the house would tilt if a corner of the •s. ':,, foundation were undermined. In response to a question from Ms. Remy, Mr.Moller said that two feet of the soil,to be removed would be removed in the final grading plan with the remaining two feet removed at the time of construction. He said that when it would be done depended on the Army Corps of langineers who had a different permitting process but pointed out that September/October was the prime time to move soil. Ms.Sybrowsky asked if there were any unknown factors at this site, Mr, Moller said that there were always unknown factors which was why the soils report recommended having a soils engineer on hand daily while they worked through the dirt, He said that they normally had an engineer come out to inspect the various stages of the grading plan to verify that the soils were the same as the boring samples. Mr. Moller said that the worst case scenario was discovering during the excavations for the foundations substandard soil less than expected; the house would then have to be put on pilings. He said that the cost wasn't significantly different from compensated footing but that he preferred compensated footings as a foundation. Ms Sybrowsky asked if this procedure had anything in it that was injurious to the neighbors, Mr. Moller said no, it did not. They were not going to contaminate the ground water or build a house that fell apart. ' Y In response to a question from Ms,Sybrowsky, Mr. Moller explained how the new drainage system would actually improve the drainage situation in the neighborhood, not worsen it, by insuring the stability of Dolph Pond through permanent weirs and a 100 year storm design. He said that he met once with the neighbors who had been mainly concerned about the trees;no one mentioned any other concerns to him, Ms,Sybrowsky suggested addressing the concerns of the neighbors, Mr.Moller said that they felt that Lake Oswego had a good:system of staff, regulations and guidelines in place that would protect the neighborhoods. He noted the list of erosion control measures required by staff and said that they would work with the neighbors hbors if they did not think the controls adequate. h Y r - _ _q _ In response to a question from Mr.Greaves, Mr, Moller said that the first two feet of the soil removed (3800 square feet) would be used to stabilize the eastern slope of the property. He said that he didn't know what would be done with the material from the foundations. Mr,Greaves asked if adding soil wouldn't increase the pressure on the area where they were putting the 380U square feet of fill, Mr. Lane said that it would increase di Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 17 INF June 13,1990 Ii the pressure but that it was not within the building area. He said that the only structures that might go on the fill area were footings for a deck. He noted that It would be compacted at a higher rate then the existing fill, In response to questions from.Mr.Greaves, Mr. Lane reviewed the organic materials found in the boring samples. He said that they found the amount of contamination typically found in a construction type fill material but that it wasn't of sufficient quantity to hurt the project. He said that it was possible in future years that there would be some decay of organic material leaving small holes in the soil, That was why they were using a compensated footing foundation with a grid system and reinforced footings that would span a ten foot void if necessary. In response to questions from Mr, Greaves,Mr,Lane said that five boring samples were probably more than were typically taken for a house type of investigation. Lie stated that he thought that five samples were sufficient to represent the existing conditions of the soil, and that they would not find anything different if they did more, He reiterated that the samples showed a typical construction fill and that they got a reasonable variation showing some concrete, asphalt, wood and mostly soil, Mr,-Greaves asked if Mr. Lane recalled any of the conditions placed on the similar sites he has investigated, Mr, Lane cited the major office structure on Macadam that was built on the same type of fill 10 years ago, He said that they had to inspect the foundation systems prior to placement of the concrete and reinforcing steel. Mr.Greaves asked for clarification on what authority the engineer had during construction to deal with unusual circumstances, such as finding a tree trunk. Mr Lane said that the engineer did have the authority to tell the contractor to remove the obstacle and put in structural fill prior to installing the footing, He e%plained that they would not sign off on the foundation system if something was wrong. Mr. Moller reiterated that a soils engineer would be on site daily per the recommendations in the staff report. Mr. Greaves asked about the water coming from the golf course, Mr. Lane said that the water went to the creek and was surface drainage, In response to Mr.Starr's comments,he clarified that he meant that the water came from the surface and drained through the subsurface system,not that the water ran over the surface of the ground. Mr. Greaves asked if there was any significant difference in the water table with the last two years being dryer than average. Mr,Lane commented that most of the water was runoff water but that one of the controlling factors would be the water table at tit.creek. Ai Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 17 INPF June 13,1990 Mr. Moller reviewed the drainage swales as they related to the golf course, pointing 410 out that they would maintain the drainage integrity of the existing swale that wasn't tightlirted. He stated that everything they were doing to the site cleaned it out and prepared it to take more soil and water as well as stabilized the existing soil. He reiterated that their intent was to stabilize the site beyond what was there now. In response to a question from Ms,Remy, Mr. Lane clarified that the soils engineer would be on site daily when they were moving dirt;if they were moving large amounts of dirt,he would be there the entire day rather than simply checking the site daily. Mr. Moller said that they did not intend to shirk their responsibilities on the development, Mr. Greaves asked if Mr, Moller was willing to accept a condition to provide a replacement tree for every tree removed, He noted that though the landscaping plan came close to that, there were a couple of trees slated for removal whose replacement might satisfy the neighbors" desire to maintain a vegetative buffer/screen to protect their view. Mr. Moller said that while he did not have a problem with that, he would like the condition to read "placement of the trees in negotiation with the builder", since he was selling the lots, Mr, Greaves clarified that he meant replacing the trees in the setback areas, not in, the building envelope, He said that while it could be worked out with the developer,he preferred setting conditions now so that the Board didn't have to be concerned with it in the future, Mr, Moller said that he had no objection to that, Mr+ Moller said that his hesitancy arose from the probability that the builder would want to develop his own vegetative screening and that it was best to let the property owner with the problem choose what types of trees he wanted for screening. He said that he was also concerned because the trees slated for removal were old alder trees that might fall on a house and he would be sued for not providing a safe lot. Chair Foster pointed out that the notations on the planting plan indicating the tree sizes were inappropriate to the project. He said that instead of 1 pt or 1 qt, they should be 1 gallon or 3 gallon cans because anything smaller wouldn't survive. Mr, Galante said that the landscape standards should be to the American Nurseryman standards. Mr.Moller asked for clarification on the grasses and sedge, noting that the smaller sizes were appropriate for those plants because they would be working in such a small area. Chair poster concurred, Mr, Galante suggested providing staff with direction on this issue, rather titan wording a condition with too much detail. Mr,Moller agreed. Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 17 June 13,1990 Chair Foster asked if Mr, Moller had an update on the permitting processes with DSL, the Corps,or Fish&Wildlife. Mr. Moller said no, that they were still in the process,artd that the Corps took six months. Mr, Greaves asked for clarification on Mr. Moller's handout regarding the section. „Proposed conditions to the rebuttal," Mr, Moller said that those were the proposed conditions brought up by Mr,Shonkwiler and that he addressed only those directly related to his rebuttal. He said that the only thing he hasn't covered was the setback. It was already at 12 feet,seven feet more than required, because he usually went past the development standards on a project for spacing separation, etc. He said that they could not increase the sideyards on the back lots by much more because they were asking such a high price for the lots that they needed to be able to build large homes on them, Catherine Clark,Associate Planner, stated that staff recommended approval of the application, The conditions as modified by the suggested modifications from the last meeting were sufficient to address the concerns, Mr,Starr asked if staff agreed with the tree removal plan as submitted, Ms,Clark said that the plan was acceptable to staff, Mr. Greaves noted the condition for chain link fencing to protect the trees and suggested changing it to requiring an arborist to develop a tree protection plan. Ms. Clark concurred that the condition',vas too broad; she explained that it was lip meant to protect the remnants of an orchard on the east side of the property, Mr. Galante asked that fencing be specifically mentioned,in the condition as part of the tree protection plan or staff would have a difficult time getting fencing, Mr.Greaves restated the condition as "an arborist to submit a plan for fencing and other tree protection." Ms.Sybrowsky asked if Mr Moller has received any feedback front the other agencies- the Corps,Fish &Wildlife, and DSL, Mr. Moller said that in the initial feedback, DSL was concerned that the weirs wouldn't wash out; the applicant hired a hydrologist and designed a plan to prevent that, Fish ex Wildlife was concerned about protection of the habitat and shading of the stream which the applicant has discovered would not be a problem, The Corps was also concerned about the wears; Mr. Greaves asked Mr. Lane how much the ground water table was expected to fluctuate due to either a drought year or a high water year. Mr.Lane said that he had no way of determining that. Ho reiterated that it would be controlled by the creek which would intercept the majority of the runoff. k.v. DevelopmenthV Review Board Minutes Page 7 of 17 41' June 13: 197 Mrs Greaves noted that Mr.Starr had mentioned potential springs on the adjacent golf course property, and asked if Mr.Lane was aware of any underground springs at this site. Mr.Lane said not in this area, though springs might show up along the creek bed. Mr.Moller reviewed the swales and drainage system as drawn on the conceptual grading plan} He said that he anticipated that the springs Mr.Starr referred to would drain into the tight line swage off the course. In response to a;question from Mr.Greaves,Mr. Moller said that they planned on an extensive clean up of the site. Chair Foster closed the hearing for board deliberations, BOARD DELiBBRATIONa Mr,Starr expressed concerns about the drainage of the springs under the 13th fairway on the golf course, Chair Foster pointed out the catch basin and pipe to be installed on the southwest corner to pipe the water to the stream. Mr.Starr said that was fine but still expressed concern about the groundwater, Chair Foster suggested adding a condition that the engineer look at the groundwater situation and prepare a plan to take care of the groundwater or subsurface drainage system for approval by staff. Mr.Starr said that the foundation program proposed by the applicant was adequate to build houses on; He concurred with maintaining 12 foot setbacks on the west 4111) side and conditioning project for an arborist to develop a "tree protection plan. He expressed concern at how they would make sure that the bulkier complied with the conditions, Mr.Greaves said that they would be recorded on the plat. He spoke for conditioning the project now,rather than at the building permit. Ms,Remy commented that the possibility for something going wrong on this project was high, especially with the removal of the dirt. She asked if there was a way to post a bond to keep the responsibility where it belonged. Mr.Galante said that this project wasn't any different from any of the other projects on sensitive sites that staff reviewed, He emphasized the approval and inspection process that was designed to make projects meet City codes; Ms.Remy said that she would defer to Mr. Starr on the subsurface drainage issue. She asked why the Country Club wasn't approached. Mr.Galante said that the Country Club did receive notice but did not elect to comment. Ms. Remy said that she did not have a problem with leaving the setbacks at 12 feet or conditioning the plant material sizes. Aft Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of 17 June 13,'1990 Mr, Greaves said that he did not have a problem with any of those conditions either. He stated that he thought that tile applicant has rebutted all the neighbors' concerns,noting in particular that the layer of tires was in fact a line of tires and that the applicant has stated that he would clean up the site. He said that the soils engineer's evidence tonight was adequate to address the concerns regarding organic material in the boring samples; he asked that the conditions be adequate to require the soils engineer to be on site for the final grading and for the final excavation of the building (to be noted on the plat). Mr,Greaves said that the actual physics of where the water would go have been adequately addressed and that there was no evidence that the water table would fluctuate. He said that he thought that the problems would resolve themselves because of the positive draining and double soil system that would improve the water drainage system in the area, He concurred with the condition requested by Mr.Starr regarding the subsurface drainage, He said that he no longer thought that an additIt ional hydrology report was necessary and that he would like to see the technicalities resolved with staff, Mr.Greaves noted that the neighborhood didn't want the street lighting; the applicant did not address that but stated that they would meet the City code regarding lighting, He asked to instruct staff to make sure that any street lighting was not intrusive, He agreed with the applicant that additional borings were not necessary,noting the discussion that compaction would meet City standards, 4, . Mr,Greaves said that he had no problem with the proposed setbacks but did request the condition of an arborist to work with the applicant on a g,rading plan to protect the trees, including fencing. He concurred with Chair Foster's and staff's comments regarding the sires of the trees, asking that the findings state tree sires in accordance with the American Nurseryman's standards, He said that with the conditions imposed tonight by the Board, he favored approving the application. Ms.Sybrowsky concurred with Mr, Greaves, She said that the applicant has addressed the neighbors' concerns and reassured her that the project was doable. She expressed concern that the findings were not back yet from DSL, the Corps,and Fish &Wildlife, Chair Foster explained that those agencies would approve or not approve the project based on their own standards,and that if any of them did not approve it, the project was stopped until all issues were answered. Mr,Greaves noted that the neighbors'concern about recreational vehicles wasn't mentioned in the approval criteria the Board used. He commented that everyone was concerned about long term maintenance when a new neighbor moved in but the fact that the applicant was working with DSL and the Corps to devise a plan with hydrologists that would be sufficient to hold back the water and provide for maintenance of the pond reassured him that the site would be protected, AA Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 17 Juno 13,1990 Mr.Greaves said,that with regards to protecting the trees,all the Board could ask.of the applicant was to meet the setback requirements,which he has already done,anti to request a tree for tree replacement. t• '`� Chair Foster concurred with Mr.Starr to require the City engineer to look at an underground subsurface drainage system and install one if required. He concurred Y,: with Mr, Greaves regarding a one to one ratio on the replacement of trees while leaving it to staff to work out the details, He reiterated changing the sizes of the materials to gallon can sizes except for the sedge and field grass, He said that street a'„ lights should be shielded from,adjacent properties but that he had no problem with �' the 12 foot setbacks, He concurred with requiring an arborist to create a fencing "'A, planacceptable . i to the City,and all.other co,r.dit�ons set bystaff, Mr, Greaves moved for approval of r1,3 2-90 in accordance with the deliberations of this Board and the conditions that are set forth in the staff report(which were ft altered prior to the last meeting with two additional conditions of Cl,and the two ,Y' , corrections under 1)2). The term"Board deliberations" encompassed all the :v;: c conditions which this Board discussed during its deliberations tonight as well as conditions placed upon the application by staff. Ms"Sybrowsky seconded the N;"k: motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Sybrowsky, , Greaves,Foster, Remy,and Starr voting in favor, II a++a i"s"+r r M•a r..:w,aW M,wr r a i...i+w N. y...w r rit w..i.�rM tr.,Y�•wb 'w nYNw+s ti..-a...w yw�..,..rt�.+Yws,:f /;. ,,.. DR 9-90, a request by VLMK Engineers for approval to construct a 10,000 square foot building to house office and storage for two tenants. The site is located on the ,.. � west side of Pilk ngton,opposite its intersection with Lakeview Blvd. (Tax Lot 3500 ` `;• of Tax Map 2 1813D), Continued from tune 4,1990 Michael Wheeler,Associate Planner,said that the applicant was working on the materials staff required and planned to have them to staff in time for review and update at the July 2 meeting Ty , v{ „ iaJuly Ms, Remy seconded the Mr.Grooves reeves �1n���'�w< �u continue UI�9 90 to2,�99U, motion" A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Sybrowsky, fi Grooves, poster,Remy,and Starr voting in favor. • t r w iM M'4 w r r N 1�1�M ►e r a N.:h.w N M`r.1++a r M N N M a�..M M P'a4 4 aY Ir w x.)+N 1 M A w r r r w M V w w w►K!I+Y4 1k W a x YG. v*' DR�r-90/VAf 5-90(a•J, a request by Dennis E. Eastman,Engr.for approval to , upgrade the existing service station,which requires a Class II variance to the Access ri Standard and a Class I variance to the 25' setback requtrcment, The site is located at 780 N.State Street(Tax Lots 1600&1700 of Tax Map 2 113 3i A). Continued from {, Dane 4.41990" A III Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 of 1 ://• t ;�,,a Ilwr June 13,1990 Chair Foster read the hearing title, criteria, and procedures, and opened the hearing, No one declared ex parte contact or bias, Mr, Galante submitted for the record the letter received from First Addition Neighbors(PAN)in opposition to this proposal. He noted that they disagreed with the applicant's narrative that there would be no adverse impact to the neighborhood or negative effect on the Comprehensive Plan. He mentioned their concern about intrusion into a residential neighborhood and the effects of traffic as it travelled up E Street into their neighbo hood; Mr. Galante recommended denial of the application because the applicant did not demonstrate how the proposal could be made to comply with the applicable regulations, especially the commercial land use policy on the impacts of strip malls and commercial areas an residential areas, Mr,Galante said that the applicant did not provide evidence in support of the two requested variances showing that the proposed project was a reasonable use of the property and that the variances were necessary to make use of the property similar to like properties in the City, He explained that while City standards required that a driveway be located 30 feet from an intersection and the applicant's proposal described the driveway as located 21 feet from the intersection, a review of the site plan revealed that the driveway for the gasoline trucks was only 10 feet from the intersection of E Avenue and State Street. el Mr. Galante said that the Engineering Department found that adequate access to this parcel for that use was not available according to the applicant's proposal and recommended denial, He noted the discussion in the staff report on unproved conditions at Terwilliger,stating that while he agreed that significant changes at Terwilliger would improve access to the site, he did not believe that the applicant has borne the burden of proof in exhibits supporting the application. In response to questions from Chair Foster, Mr. Galante stated that the materials received so far were insufficient to support the current application, and that he did not believe that the applicant would be able to generate information sufficient to support this application. He said that staff has worked with this applicant over a lengthy period of time and that the applicant wanted the hearing to occur, The Board spoke with the applicant who indicated that he understood that the staff has recommended denial but wanted to proceed anyway. APPLICANT Dennis Eastman, Engineer,pointed out that this site has been a gas station for a couple of generations with Western States operating it for the last 10 years, He said that Western States had to upgrade its tanks and pipes to meet DEQ regulations Aft Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 of 17 June 13,1990 and decided to upgrade the building at the same time in cooperation with BP Company. He explained that they intended to sell only gas at the station and not run a service garage; therefore all they needed were the sante number of pumps,a canopy and a small office building at the rear,and they intended to make the site look nice, Mr. Eastman said that Bp Company was paying for most of the upgrade as well as designing and constructing it to meet their standards. He said that he designed the layout of the facilities and the landscaping to create a nice looking gas station.. He reviewed the specifics of the site plan,noting the separate lanes for cars (at 21 feet from the intersection)and for trucks (at 10 feet from the intersection because of the turning radius), He said that the trucks were infrequent, a little more than once a week, Mr,Eastman pointed out the'"junky"condition of the station right now, emphasizing that thia design improved the station look a great deal, He said that if the owners could not improve the station's look, then BP would pull the franchise and the station would revert to an Astro station with no image improvements. Mr.Greaves asked if an Astro station would get a greater volume of business than an BP station because of cheaper gas, Mr. Eastman said that he did not know but that he did not think either one would have an effect on E Avenue, Mr.Eastman said that the first time he heard of the issues in the staff report was ' two days ago when he received the report, He said that he has tried hard to work with staff but has gotten little feedback on what the issues were that he needed to d the code, he would have violate {g He said that if he had known the sign deal with, violated made it smaller. He s. id that his intent was to work with staff to meet any requirement they asked for. John Sinister,owner of Western States,reviewed their situation,in having to meet a DEQ deadline, He explained that they have not been able to sell the property and therefore in November signed a new contract with BP which included a.clause about upgrading the station, He said.that BP was willing to put up$80,000 to replace the tanks,pipes and upgrade the station with Western States putting up $1.0,000 for the pumps,concrete work,etc» He said that he was embarrassed by the outdated terrible looking station and wanted to build something that would be attractive at an entrance to Lake Oswego, Mr.Pinister confirmed that they would return to an Astro station if they could not upgrade the station in accordance with the BP contract. He said that they would meet the.DEQ requirements and remain an operating gas station but that they didn't have enough money to do more than meet the DEQ requirements. He noted that Western States owned the five feet bo.hind the property that was.zonc;d residential; there:was no access to it and nothing could be done with it, He said that al Development review Board Minutes Page 12 of 17 1111, June 13,1990 the variation on the street access was needed to allow a truck to enter and exit (10 safely as well as customers. Ms.Sybrowsky asked if the new design requirements met the requirements of the letter from FAN (Exhibit 13). Mr. Eastman explained that the sight distance was relative to the location of the properties and could only be fixed by OPOT. He pointed out that part of the sight distance problem was caused by the weeds,trees, and brush on the land belonging to the park. In response to a question from Chair Foster,both Mr. Eastman and Mr Galante confirmed that the applicant did request a variance for the driveway access onto E Avenue, Mr,Greaves asked if a taller curb would keep cars from using the truck lane, Mr. Eastman said that he did not want to create a hazard,and that a certain number of cars would use the truck lane in any case, Mr. Greaves asked if the car lane could be pulled further, down from the corner, Mr. Eastman said that that could be done, Ms,Sybrowsky asked if Mr,Eastman had a letter from the City Engineer giving his opinion of the proposal. Mr. Eastman said that he had not received a letter and that the City Engineer simply generally opposed the proposal, Chair Foster asked if the applicant asked for a variance to the setback from the building to the back property line, Mr, Eastman said yes, and that the variance was 4110 from their own property. The Board asked Mr, Eastman if he had considered any alternatives to his design to deal with the traffic issues, Mr.Eastman and Mr. Finister noted the traffic safety problems caused by moving the pumps forward. Mr, Eastman commented that a traffic problem currently existed at the site, He reiterated his willingness to work with staff but said that the state had to deal with the existing traffic situation which would not change whether or not the station was improved. Mr. Greaves commented that the likelihood of additional traffic volume created by an improved station was what created the additional traffic hazard that had to be addressed by the proposal. He commented that a driveway too close to an intersection created the hazard of people trying to do two potentially conflicting things at the same time, Mr.Greaves suggested that the applicant hire a traffic consultant to find the hardcore data to support whether or not a change at the station would create a significantly greater traffic hazard than currently existed. Ike said that while staff could help the applicant with his proposal,staff could not write the proposal for him; it was the applicant's responsibility to carry the burden of proof. Development Review Board Minutes Page"13 of 17 June 13,1990 Mr. Greaves stated that he was not adamantly opposed to this project but said that dilb the applicant needed to carry the burden of proof and address the traffic issue with sufficient evidence to support his position. He noted that the Board already had evidence that the project would improve the looks of`the site to make it more compatible with the neighborhood, that the owner intended to comply with the DFQ regulations, and that the back proper.'y was his lot which he did not anticipate selling. The remaining issue was the traffic issue for which the applicant had to provide evidence. Mr.Greaves said that it had not been clear to him,that there was a truck only lane with a minimal amount of truck interference at the intersection;he suggested that the applicant emphasize that. He asked if 21,feet was the minimum variance necessary to make the site work, Chair Foster asked if Mr. Eastman had considered any other movements of the truck and mentioned different options available, Mr. Galante informed the Board of the history of the site,explaining that an application for an Oil Can Henry's facility on the site was denied several years ago based on the traffic and sight distance issues. He said that they had had several professionals helping them, He pointed out that this was a site with a nonconforming structure according to the current codes, He said . .tt the codes were designed to eventually bring nonconforming uses into cone. .Ice with the Code rather than have them perpetuate themselves, Mr, Galante said that the proposed structure would be a structure conforming to the current codes via the variance process. He said that the site was small and had difficult existing site circulation issues;,he did not know how to solve that problem, He noted that the Board was saying that evidence submitted by a qualified traffic engineer was the kind of support needed for the application, Chair Foster asked if the small residential property at the back could be rezoned to increase the size of the property to allow reasonable use. Mr. Galante said that several years ago the Planning Commission was asked that question but never finalized their answer because Oil Can Henry's withdrew its application. He noted the substantial neighborhood opposition at the time, He said that the Plan did say that there should not be an expansion of commercial into residential, In response to Chair Foster's question, Mr,Galante said that it was possible to expand the residential area into the commercial area but reiterated that it was a very difficult parcel. Ms.Sybrowsky asked Mn Eastman if he had looked at the sign code in designing the sign, Mr, Eastman said that Mr Galante told him not to worry about it, and that he would tell him the regv irements as they went along. fibiDevelopment Review Board Minutes Page 1..4 of 17 1111, June 13,1990 PROPONENTS Fred Deiin, BP Sales Representative,stated that Mr, Finister was indeed under contractual obligations to BP to upgrade and replace the tanks and station image, and that BP has committed substantial dollars to do the improvements. He noted that 13P was working towards a uniform image for its gas stations throughout the world and presented a brochure showing other stations recently completed in the area, He commented that BP had 18 station projects scheduled for this year and expected to complete 15 of them. Mr,Dolin said that they were willing to work with staff to address the problems. He said that trucks could be backed up but that it was difficult to do so with a full load of fuel; they had provided Mr. Eastman with the turning radius, He commented that they could schedule late or low peak hour traffic deliveries. Chair Foster asked if the criteria for truck delivery access had to be as designed or if BP simply preferred that design. Mr, Dolin said that they preferred that design but noted that the state was politely asking them to do it that ways 1El3UTTJ Mr.Eastman commented that right now the traffic went out right at the corner of E Avenue,and that their intent was to pull the traffic more than 20 feet away from the (00 corner to create a safer situation at B Avtnue, not make it worse, He commented that the FAN letter implied that the proposal would make everything worse but reiterated that he had worked carefully to improve the traffic situation for both the cars and the trucks, Chair Foster closed the hearing for Board deliberations, BOARD DELIBERATIONS Ms, Remy said that she did not find that thr applicant completely addressed the issues that have been raised, though it appeared that many could be addressed with more information that was not presently available, Ms.Sybrowsky said that she did not feel that the applicant had submitted sufficient evidence to grant approval. Mr,Greaves stated that he liked what they proposed doing,as it made a better use of the site and probably would improve the safety of the site, He commented that the image of a nice looking gas station was better at a gateway to the City than a junky station. He said that he thought that the applicant could attempt to address Ast Development Review Board Minutes Page'15 of 17 June 13,1990 the concerns raised by the Board through hiring professionals such as an attorney,a land use planner, a traffic engineer,etc. Mr.Greaves noted the nonconforming structure issue,commenting that FAN claimed that while the proposal did improve the looks of the station, it would hurt their neighborhood, He said that the applicant needed to address that issue with evidence to support his position, He pointed out that FAN didn't submit any evidence either to support its assertion that the traffic situation would worsen. He said that while they would never be able to get perfect sight distances on this site, what Mr. Eastman was saying that they were improving what could be a potential hazard by upgrading the site. Mr. Greaves said that he did not think that the applicant has complied with the requirements. He reiterated his suggestion to get professionals to work with staff to address these concerns, Fie said that if some of them were addressed, he would be generally in favor of the project, He said that he would vote for a continuance. Ms, Remy said that she concurred that it would be a nice improvement to the City if they met the criteria Cindy Philips,Deputy City Attorney, advised the Board that they needed to get a waiver of the 120 day rule if they were going to force a continuance, Mr,Greaves clarified that he meant granting a continuance only if the applicant 1p requested it, if the applicant decided not to address the issues, then he would vote against the project because he agreed with Mr.Galante that the applicant has not addressed all the criteria, Chair Foster stated that he found the presentation very imprecise and weak because of conflicting statements made by the applicant. He said that he agreed that this would be an improvement to the City and that the applicant has not substantiated the requests for variances He said that he was not sure whether or not they should give the applicant another opportunity to resubmit, The Board discussed whether or not to allow a continuance,should the applicant request one, They agreed by consensus to allow the applicant to request a continuance, Mr, Greaves said that he did not think PAN'sletter was adequate either to protest this proposal. He said that he was offended that they did not make a presentation this evening in defense of their position. He said that he was also concerned with the East End redevelopment, noting that this was a viable alternative that would clean up an eyesore, provided that it did not increase the safety hazards, Mk Development Review Board Minutes Page 16 of 17 1111. June 13,1990 Mr Tinister requested a continuance to July 16, 1990. Mr.Galante explained the 411, procedures Mr,sinister should follow in case he could not meet the July 16 date, Ms, Remy moved to continue DR 2-90/VAR 5-90(a-b) to July 16,1990, Mr,Starr seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Sybrowsky,CCreaves, Foster, Remy,and Starr voting in favor, w..w'r-r ri r n,�.r,�r--F w w N w r.,N.r r r-M r M r-w r w r w a M w--r n w:i w M--:.i.w wf h 4• '4 M'it iw N w.r,«. DR 4-90,a request by Yaklight& Assoc,,Inc, The applicant is requesting approval to remodel the existing residence into two (2) rental units (upper and lower), Also, a request to construct eight(8) additional units for a total of ten (10) rental units. The site is located at 3500 SW Carman Drive (Tax Lot 4200 of Tax Map 21E 5CD and.Tax Lot 5700 of Tax Map 21E 5DC), Continued from June 4,1990. This item was postponed, VI, GENERAL PLANNING -None Vf. OTHER BUSINESS -Findings,Conclusions and Order Chair Poster moved for approval of the findings,conclusions and order for DR 7- 90-781 (first vote). Ms. Sybrowsky seconded the motion, A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Sybrowsky,roster, and Remy voting in favor, Grcaves and Starr abstained, VII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Poster adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. di Development Review Board Minutes Page 17 of 17 glIF June 13, 1990 A g pi 1 i iiiiii , w.. 0 CITY OF LAKE QDWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 7, 1990 I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of May '7, 1990 was called to order by Chairman Foster at 7R30 p.m, XI. ROLL CALL Board members present wore Mr. Bloomer, Mr. Greaves, Mr, Foster, Ms , Remy and Mr. Starr, Also present were Robert Galante, ,Acting Planning Director; Cindy Philips,, Assistant City Attorney; F athy Avery, Secretary. i III APPROVAL CV MINUTES Mr, Starr moved for approval ,of the November 61. 1989 Development Review Boar. minutes Mr. Foster seconded the 11111 motion and it passed with Mr. Foster, Ms . Remy and Mr. Starr voting yes. Mr. Greaves and Mr. Bloomer abstained. IV, PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None. V. PUELXC HEARINGS TR 2-90, a request by Timothy Walters for approval to remove three trees. The site is located at 18462 Anduin Terrace, on the west side Of Anduin Terrace and is the third lot north of Wostview Drive (Tax Lot 133 of Tax Map 2 l,E 170D) . Robert Galante stated to the Board that the builder had sent a letter to staff requesting a continuance of this hearing' to June 4, 1990 . He explained that they may be withdrawing their application and preserving the trees . Ms. Remy moved to continue Tit 2-90 to June 4, 1990k Mr. Starr seoonded the motion and it passed with Mr. Greaves, Mr. "`ost :r, Ms . Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr, Bloomer voting yes . ORB Minutes of 5/7/90 Page 1 of 14 N PD 3-9 \SD 57-8 ,, a request by John Kyle Architect. The applicant is seeking approval of a two-lot planned development,. each lot of which will have pOrtiona in two zone districts' (R-7.5, R-,15) also the applicant is seeking approval for a Lot Linn Adjustment betwoon two existing parcels, Each adjusted parcel is proposed to exceed the minimum required lot size of the zone in which its largest portion is located. The site is located at 107 Burnham Road (Tax Lots 100, 201 of Tax Map 2 1Z 11CC) Michael Wheeler stated he had passed out to the Board a letter from Donald Trotter the architect representing John Fiyle, requesting a continuance on this hearing until June 4, 1990 . The continuance was necessary because Mr. Johansen was out or town. Mr, Starr moved for continuance of PD 3-X\SD 07-89 t9 June I 4, 1990, Mt. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr Greaves, Mr, Foster, Ma. Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer voting yes. DR 23-88iXX, a request by Oswego Properties, Inc. for approval to construct a '38-unit apartment complex with ground level parking below. The proposal was appealed to the City Council and Remanded to the Development Review Board. Testimony will be limited to reevaluating the Park and Open Space Standard to determine whether it was appropriate for the Development Review board to have previously approved this project and allowed a', fee in lieu of providing et least 20% of the site as an Open space area. The site is located on the west side of 2nd St. , between "Rrr and pc►r Avenues (Tax Lots 1700, 1800, 1900 and 2000 of Tax Map 2 1E 300) Chairman Foster asked i1± anyone on the Board had any conflict of interest or ex parte contact in connection with the hearing. Mr. Greaves stated that the project engineer and architect for this case were clients of his lawirm, however, he had not discussed this case with them and this would not alter his vote. ORB Minutes or 5/7/90 page 2 Of 14 Robert Galante summarized the staff report by saying teat$ 1 this application is being returned to the Development Review Board from the City Council to review only a small part o, the original application and additional information regarding the Open Space Priority Standards . With this additional information the Board should make a decision and adopt detailed and descriptive findings . Mr. Galante stated that one of the main issues was to decide whether the trees in question were specimen trees. The applicant had carefully gone through the process required for open space and had submitted that as evidence. Mr. Galante discussed the appeal brief submitted by the First Addition Neighbors saying that it was more specific, than the Notice of Appeal and he thought that the neighbors would be presenting that tonight . APPLICANT Garda Hathaway, 1215 N Morrison, Portland, stated that he was the attorney representing Oswego Properties in this hearing 41) and that the only issue before the Board was whether or not the application satisfied the Park and Open Space Standards of the City Code. He said that there was a park in the neighborhood and that if a fee in lieu of was paid on the property in question it would, go to maintaining the neighborhood park and that it was what the master plan called for. Mr. Hathaway referred to the "Guide Book For ,Oevelopment ,of. the cast End", saying that one of the plan objectives for this area is high density housing. Mx. Hathaway said that if the Board approved what the FAN wanted approved, there would be 40% landscaping or open space on this site. A year ago the Development Review Board. required that 20% of the site be landscaped as part of the approval. The applicant feels that if the requirement is that 40% of the property be landscaped or set aside as open space, the project would not, be financially feasible. There is a Japanese leaf maple tree that the applicant has been required to preserve and that is included in the 20% CARS Minutes of 5/7/90 Page 3 of 14 0 landscaping plan. Other than this one tree there isn't anything on the site that the Comprehensive Plan recognizes ' as a special feature. Lance: Stou , Planning ManngGr for M o'kr rnxie *, $aita Aasocia'pes, Po t1anc3, said he had presented a letter to Mr. Hathaway and it was included in the Hoard' s information. 1 Mr. Stout found in reviewing the criteria for the Park and Open Space Code on this site that there is very little natural character remaining on the site from ita original condition, He found the same to be true for natural meadow criteria and the topographic variation. He said that any site could be used in one form or another for recreation, however, this site is so small, that it wouldn' t even allow- for a standard Size park. In conclusion, Mr» Stout found in leaking at the criteria and inspecting the site, that the site does net contain features that would require preservation, except for the Japanese Leaf Maple, Bob0 Maxanvr Axbt rist,4 stated that he was registered with the American site of Consulting Arborists. He eXpiained that he did a tree 'by tree analysis on the site and that he found ` some f the trees to have a very high potential for hazard. He found that only the Japanese lace leaf maple is a specimen tree and should be retained no matter what the cost . The remaining trees are what would be found in other residential areas. The trees do net warrant any extraordinary effort to retain. The Hoard asked Mr. Mazany if his conclusions 'mould be any different if these trees were located on the periphery instead of the central portion of this project . Mr. Mazany responded that based on the proposed development there would' not be sufficient room for root zone, Root zone tends to be one and a half. times the height of the tree and this site doesn' t allow for that growth. The board asked Mr. Mazany if he would save any other trees. Mr. Mazany responded that the sweet gum and chinkapin were nice, however, they have had some damage due to storms and the oust/benefit ratio would not be beneficial . He said you would not be able to develop over half the property just to ORB Minutes of 5/7/9.0 411 Page 4 of 14. s da 4;Ctf,3 ti` r ,•v.t,, , ' r . fit i',i,, Gi,[ try to Save thosey treos and trhe value of those trees do not make it economically feasible, Be said that this is based `w�' ;$ �,�rr� 1 on the current conditions. ' ',. �,,y"r PROPONENTSnone ,, ; OPPONFNI,$ ' ° F, *Iiohaa . nvansf Chairman of 'irpt_>Addition Neighborhood , ;,", 1 ,,: A sociatio>a, presented a written statement of their # , testimony and a section of the appeal brief that was ,,i) '.. . ;.'' submitted to City Council on the appeal, !`f a' ' . I riiMr, ! vans stated that the reason for their appeal to City ; r�`.x ; .t Council was that they did not feed, the applicant should be ;, ';'' J allowed to pay a fee in lieu of open space as they did not ;,,�,k ,; prove there was no suitable area for the' open space, He, , ii explained that the applicant must prove that there is no 1.--- f„ suitable area for open space in orer to have th�� fee in ,,,{,,'r. ,a,t., lieu of policy. The City Council' s remand states that it 1S „4' r,e , not clear why there is not suitable area for the open space, The buyout of open space should only be allowed in the most *ON!„ 40 extreme circumstances where there is no property suitable i wl;,u.}, .... for open space. ! tr+#xf t 1 V ' Michael Q', frinnt 143 9th streets .Lake. pswe cor, explained that t e he is a member of the First Addition Neighborhood ° association and that he was aloe the staff person who was 1'1 responsible for the Comprehensive plan, He further r explained he wrote the Zoning Ordinance and the Development '., Ordinance which was in question. 4e,g' r'•' r, He feels that the applicant can provide both high density : , , i housing and open space if they reduce the amount of units , they are trying to develop. In the Impact Management policy ,r +' of the Comprehensive Plan, General Policy states they can ,' have the density after they have met the landscaping and ,' . open space requirements . The Board has the authority to �,fe, ,r; reduce the density to fulfill the landscaping and open space requirements . y He stated that it is up to the Development Review Board to ,; ,,k decide there is- no suitable space for open space and it is ! b ; not up to the applicant, The community wants the open space ;' first, There is no substantial evidence in the record that DRF Minutes of 5/7/90 , 4110Page 5 of 1 r ,.... . . r { shows that 1.00% of the s ' 0 would be unsuitable for open space; He asked the Board to find that the current proposal has not met the City' s: requirements for open space, direct the applicant to revise the proposed project to include the 209 open space and reduce the density to meet this requirement, and maintain the trees identified as having special character. D i;k Moran, ,P.O. Box 74, Lake Oswego, said he felt the applicant is confused with open space and park space and they are not interchangeable. He said it is presumed that the Board will demand 20% open space from any developer and that this was also the interpretation of the Council in remanding this application back to the Board. Review Development R v� w r p e d. Merry, Colvin, 1224 Bayberry Road, Lake Oswego, said she came to speak for the trees on the location. She feels clearly there is some discrepancy in the reports between the two 410 arborist and she asked the Board to look into this matter further. She feels the trees are both an environmental and v1sual asset . Wilma McNulty, 4100 Coltsfoot Lane, Lake Oswego, showed some slides of the trees on the property, pointing out that they were beautiful, big, vital and a true asset to the area. She said many of the trees ate landmark trees to the area, She feels that the open space is very important to the integrity of the neighborhood. Gordon Evans, 246 C Avenue, Lake Oswego, stated that he felt the real issue was one of money, He Said that Oswego properties were maximizing profits, while the City was being bought out of open space. He urged the Board to decline this application and keep it as open space, which is what he felt made Lake Oswego unique. Dick Johnsen, 656 3rd, Lake Oswego, said that there were many young families that lived in this neighborhood that needed a place to play. He said that all the open space is being bought out and there is not going to be any open space or parks left. DRB kiinutes, of 5/7/90 Page 6of1 Norma Peterson,, presented a picture to the Board which Melissa Dows, a 1.0 year girl in the neighborhood, drew for the Board. PEBU!"TAL Greg Hathawav,, 1215 SW Morrison, Portland, stated that this is an emotional issue and he wants the people to know that they are not trying to change the Park and Open Space Standards, He said that City Council did not make any decisions on this, they just remanded it back to the Development Review Board to determine whether the open space standards were applied and satisfied. The fee in lieu of is an alternative that the City codes allow for when there isn' t any good open space to be used for park or open space. The issues being discussed tonight are the same issues that 4110 were discussed in the hearing a year ago when the Development Review Board unanimously approved their project plan; B Mazany, C©nsul:ting Ar grist, stated that he disagreed with Bill Owens report only in the retention of the trees that have the high potential for hazard. He said any tree can be maintained, but it' s more an issue of whether that is a viable use of the tree. He really feels that the trees are a hazard potential and the cost/benefit ratio is not in favor of saving the trees. The Board asked Mr. Mazany if there were any other trees on the site that were in a vigorous, growing, healthy condition. Mr. Mazany said that a lot of them were vigorous because they were growing in good conditions, but he was concerned whether they were safe. Mr. Mazany agreed with Mr. Owen, saying that the douglas fir„ big leaf maple, giant arborvitae and the sweet gum could be worked with and protected as long as you didn't develop the property at all, but he wouldn' t want anything within proximity of those trees. DAB Minutes of 5/7/90 Page 7 of 1 4F Anti • . ,t Chairman Foster asked Mr. Mazany if the Japanese maple would be the only tree worth saving considering that someday the site would be developed. Mr. Mazany said that the trees f have a high potential for hazard and any remedial care might not solve the problem DELIBERATION Chairman Foster said that the issue is whether dr not there is anything on the site that is worth saving for open space. The Board found that the only fine or particular example worth saving is the Japanese lace leaf maple. There may be others that would be worth saving under different circumstances, however, the cost/benefit ratio is. not beneficial . tic., The Code allowed for the fee in lieu policy for sites like this when there isn't anything extremely unique so the City may use the money for something that benefits the whole city. They feel that this is what the East End Redevelopment Plan calls for and that the applicant has done a very good job at a presenting a strong case in proving that he has the right to go ahead with this type of development . Mr. Greaves moved for approval of DR 23-88111 on remand/PD 11/89, Ms. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Greaves, Mr. Foster, Ms . Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer voting yes . SD 60_89W''V'A:R 43-89, a request by Nick Bunick Custom. Homes, Xno. for approval of a minor partition to create two parcels, each a minimum of one acre in size from a 2.19 acre •' parcel; also, a Class XX variance to the Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a street for a minimum of 25 ft. Neither parcel is proposed to abut a street. The site is located at the west end of Twin Points Road (Tax Lot 2700 of Tax Map 2 1E 9Bb) .. ORB Minutes of 5/7/90 Page 8 of 14 0 . Chairman Foster asked if anyone on the Board had any conflicts of interest or ex parte contact in connection with this hearing and there was none, Mike Wheeler stated that the, site was the subject of an approval in 1988 for three parcels and at that time a class I variance had been requested and approved. The site does not have any access from a public street, it is served by an access easement. The applicants proposal as submitted does comply with the development standards that apply. Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposal, both the partition and the Class II variance with the lengthy list of conditions for partition. The Board asked Mr. Wheeler where the access is located. Mr. Wheeler responded that in exhibit #1 it showed it coming off of Twin Point Drive. Chairman Foster asked if there were any problems with the , easement the way it is . Mr. Wheeler said that there were « none identified„ APPLICANT sick Sunick, 1:575 SW View, Lake Court, Lake Oswego., stated that the easements have been in existence for about 55 years. He stated that he was proposing to take the parcel that was 2 . 19 acres in size and divide that into two equal parcels. There, would be only one homesite on one of the parcels that would be 25 to 30 feet from the lake, He explained: that there would only be three or four trees affected by the home site and they planned on building two 7, 000 sq. ft . homes on that parcel. The Board asked if the shoreline was different than the property line. Mr. Bunick responded that the property line actually goes out farther than the shoreline, however, he was Using the shoreline for the 25 setback. Chairman Foster asked the applicant if he owned Parcel 2 and 3 to the west of the property in question. Mr. Bunick responded that he owned parcel 2 and it had a 7, 000 sq. ft . DRB Minutes of 5/7/90 4111 Page 9 of 14 home under construction, but he had sold parcel 3 . The Board asked Mr. Bunick if the eagement was a road. Mr. 5unick stated that it had been a road for the last 50 years. The Board asked Mr. Bunick what the width of the easement is . Mr. Bunick said that the easement varies, however, it never gets under 22 to 23 feet Mr. Bunick stated that the fire chief had visited the property on a couple of occasions and concluded that a fire truck would have no problem accessing the site. He explained that the home would be 25 feet from the Lakeshore: and 40 feet from the driveway easement and all the utilities had been installed last year. PROPONNNTS Dave Simmons, 15548 Village Driyel :Lake Oswego(, stated that he was an officer for Village on the Lake and was the spokesman for that association. He explained that when Mr. Bunick bought the property, there was a totally deteriorated home on the property and he built a beautiful home in place of it . Mr. Simmons urged the Board to approve Mr. Bu,7ick' s application as it was an asset to the community as a whole, Drew Davis, 1880, Twin Point, Lake Oswego, said that he owned the property that the easement started at and everyone needed to travel through his, property. He felt that Mr. Duniok had made a very nice area and he would have no problem granting easement rights to Mr. Bunick. Opponents - none DBLWSDRATXON Robert Galante noted for the record that page nine and ten Of the staff report address each of the various criteria and he believes they should be adopted by the Board showing that the criteria for the variances have been adequately met by the applicant. Dt B Minutes of 5/7/90 Page 10' of 14 t. Greaves moved for the approval of SD 60-- pkv , 4 -89 izx adcordanci with the .delibojj na of the .Develaq emt Review Boar i h anti ulcer note i» they _ ri aria in a nine and ten of the staff report are adopted bar, this Boor as suchMinding r h he nditians s u . a aff, Mr, Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Gr'eaves,, Mr. Foster, Ms. Remy, Mr, Starr and Mr. Bloomer voting yes. : ,.: w ..'.. .. .;.. ... ,« .. s•. w ,.,. .+ r. ., .`►.. r r rt.. ,.. «. w. .,.. .w w. .v w.Y .p ..: « '.w rrt w. ++. '.i SD 7-90tvAR 4-90, a request by Blue n;roz1 Development for approval for the creation of three parcels from a 1 .20 acre Parcel. Each pareei is proposed to be in excess of 10, 000 Square feet; also a Glass ri variance to the Acoass Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a street for a minimum of 2$ feet. Two parcels are proposed to have no frontage on a street, instead, they are proposed to be served by an easement for access. The site is located west of oillshire Drive, south of Westridge Drive (Tan Lot 800 (portion; Parcel XXX, SO 31-09) of Tax Map 2 lE 17Cbl Chairman Foster asked if anyone on the Ooard had any ex parte contact or conflicts of interest and there was none. 0 Mike Wheeler stated that the reason this r pplicatiOn was coming before the Board was due to a resent interpretation by the City Manager regarding variances to the access standard The site is in its second year of minor partitions . In 1989 there was an approval for two parcels to be divided into three parcels eaoht There are request for divisions on the north of this lot. There are three lots to be created out of Tax .toot $04, two will not have physical frontage on a public street I Mr. Wheeler stated that all the facts have been carefully analyzed in the staff report. Staff finds that they satisfy the applicable criteria and recommends approval of the minor partition and Class II Variance subject to the conditions listed in the report . Chairman Foster asked Mr. Wheeler if there is currently a road in existence. Mr. Wheeler stated that there was net, but there would be a private road. ORB Minutes of 8/7/90 41) age x 1. of l The Board asked Mr Wheeler if the fire chief had seen this plan and if he approved of it and Mr. Wheeler responded that he had reviewed it and approved it . APPLICANT Jerry Palmer. 1750 :SW Skyline, Portland said that the proposal is specific to the minor partition of the 1 .2 acre parcel into three parcels; A, B and C. Proposed parcel has a 25 feet frontage cn Hilishire, and will grant a reciprocal, easement to parcels B and C for access purposes. There would be one roadway that is 24 feet wide, with a cud, de sac turn around would have reciprocal easement in both areas . The Board asked Mr. Balmer if they would be taking utilities across other peoples properties in order to reach this site. Mr. Palmer said that yes they would be. The Board asked Mr, Balmer if the utilities in Melissa were adequate enough to serve A, 5 and C. Mr. Palmer said they 4/10 were. The Board also asked Mr. Palmer if he had to make any improvements on Bryant to get across there, Mr, .Palmer said no. Crecc Heinz(), 2006 SW Nybercrt Tualatin, stated,that he is the owner of Tax Lot 1000, which is the property to the south and he controls the accessibility. He said that the only thing stopping him from developing the other property is the services that will be brought up to A, B and C. He is interested in working out a deal and putting the driveway in at the same time. The Board asked if he was planning on dividing. He said that at one time there was a potential partition. Bruce Sonlas, 14 Hillshire Drive. . Lake ,psweao. said he is the owner of Tax Lot 1203, making him the gate keeper and key master of the private drive in question. Re stated that he is in favor of the plan as depicted in Bxhibit #9 . DRB Minutes of 5/7/90 Page 12 of 1 doe rahrondorf, 0 Hillshire 'brive. Lake Oswego/ stated that he is the original resident on that road. He is in support of the current proposal This area was very run down prior to this development . Opponents - None D1LIBZRA' IONS Chairman Foster stated that he had no problem with this proposal that it looked like a good ides and the applicant had met all the requirements. Ms. Remy moved for approval of $b 7--00\vAR 4-00 irn accordance with the recommendation and Condit op in the staff retort and in accordance with the deliberation of the Board, Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Greaves, Mr , Foster, Ms. Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer voting yes . 0 VI . GENERAL PLANNING Robert Galante discussed the memo from Ilamid Ii.ahvaie regarding the name change of Christopher Lane to Denton Drive . He e>tplained that the reason for the request was because of an auction which was held for a non-profit organization where the highest bidder would have a street named after them. Mr. Starr moved that christopher Lane. be chanced tc benton Lana;, Mt. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr Greaves, Mr. Foster, Ms, Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer voting yes, VIZ„ OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order Chairman foster moved for approval of Pindings, , Conclosions and,Order DR 6-90-776,, Mr. Starr seconded the mehion and it passed with Mr. Greaves, Mr. Foster, Ms. Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer voting yes, ORB Minutes of 5/7/90 Lago 13 of 1 VI X X. AD,YOURNMSNT There being no further business to come before the Development Review Roa,rd, the meeting ad aurned at 10 :25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Jhiik1 Sheri Evald Secretary se 9/21/90 URA Minutes of 5/7/9q page 14 of 14 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES April 2, 1990 I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of April 2, 1990,was called to order by Chairman Foster at 7;30 p,m, II. ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr, 3loomer, Ms, Sybrowsky, Mr. Greaves, Mr, Foster, Ms, Rccny,Mr, Starr, and Mr, Stemaway, Also present were Hamid t'ishvaie, Development Review Planner; Lynn Bailey, Associate 1'lanncr; Cindy Philips, Assistant City Attorney; and Barbara Anderson,Secretary, IIX. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Commission noted sonic grammatical corrections to the October 1(i, 1989 minutes, A motion was made and seconded to approve the October 16, 1989, regular meeting minutes as corrected, A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Ms, Sybrowsky,Mr Greaves, Ms, Remy, and Mr. Starr voting in favor, Mr, Startaway,Mr, Foster, and Mr Bloomer abstained, IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: None V. IPUi3IIC IXEARINC IMAM, a request by liornesite Development Corp. for approval of a 32 lot single family residential planned development, The site is located north and south of Iron Mountain Blvd., and west of SunnniitDrive, otherwise known as (Tax Lots 201 and 600 of'1 ax Map 2 IE 9 and Index), The hearing will be reopened to consider sidewalks on Ridgewood Road, Continued from March 5, 1990, Chair Foster read the hearing title and procedures, lie opened the hearing. STAFF IREP Ilctrnid Pishvaie, Development Review Planner, presented the staff report. He mentioned that the Board approved this 17 lot subdivision on March S. The applicant withdrew the northern half of the subdivision midway through the review process, I he item before the Board tonight was whether or not to put a sidewalk in on Ridgewood Road, Development Review board Minutes Page 1 of IS April 2, 1990 APP►LIC.AN ' Arthur C. Piccolo,Jr.,principal of HHamesite Development Corporation, spoke in opposition to a sidewalk on the site. He explained that the intent behind the design was to interlace with the existing neighborhood with as little transition as possible, They agreed to the request not to put a monument sign at the subdivision entrance. They saw value in the sidewalk extension on only the two lots on the open side but were willing to concede to the neighbors who did riot want a sidewalk in the area on the south side. OP QNrNTS George Roney,2203 SW Ridgewood)(Lane,said that he was appealing the decision on the sidewalks, He submitted a series of photographs into the record. lie stated his opposition to the proposed sidewalks for Lots 6,9 on Block 3 and its extension on Ridgewood Road from the earner of Ridgewood Lane. He said that he owned the corner property on Ridgewood Road and Ridgewood Lane. He contended that sidewalks art those Our lots would not enhance the safety of the neighborhood nor would the absence of said sidewalks put the neighborhood at risk, He noted the test mony at a prior hearing that the neighborhood has requested a smooth transition from this development to the existing neighborhood, Mr. Roney reviewed the photographs, They showed different views from Summit Drive, Ridgewood Road,and Ridgewood Lane as an illustration of the character of the neighborhood, and why sidewalks were not necessary; He mentioned that with the residential nature of the area and the culdesacs, traffic was minimal. He said that he opposed placing a sidewalk along his property to the corner because it served no purpose and was ugly, It would have no redeeming value for safety, Mr, honey said that since the 1960s they have had a nice neighborhood without sidewalks and no pedestrian/auto conflicts, He reiterated that a sidewalk on three lots plus the extension along his property would not enhance the safety of the neighborhood, 1 He contended that sidewalks could detract from the neighborhood, lie said that a sidewalk to the wetlands conservation land would encourage pedestilan traffic which the Wetlands Conservancy had earlier testified should be discouraged. Also an impermeable surface could damage the wetlands through excessive runoff Mr. Roney explained that he put in the narrow gravel path on his property in consultation with his landscape architect in 1979. IIe pointed out that it was not a Cull sidewalk, Elie mentioned that nowhere in the neighborhood did one see full sidewalks, Ile stated that he did not believe that the Code mandated sidewalks in all developments. Seeing no one else who wanted to testify, Chair Poster closed the public hearing, DELIBERATIONS ERATIO The Board cited Mr, Roney's evidence regarding compatibility with the neighborhood,the number of homes that the sidewalk would serve, and the relationship with the wetlands conservancy area as reasons to revisit their decision on the sidewalks. They discussed whether or not to put sidewalks in the development at all, They noted that the limited number of Development Review t3oard Minutes Page 2 of 15 April 2, 1990 homes being added to the cuidesac would not increase traffic much, and that the pedestrian f situation was not a dangerous. Theyreed that a sidewalk was out of character r the %.• � � ► to a , neighborhood, and that information presented demonstrated that thero was not a real need for. � Y one, Mr. Greavcs moved for the modification of the previous decision on 1)1) 18.89 to remove F the requirement on the applicant to put in sidewa►lics along the development itself and extending tit Ridgewood Road, Mr, Starr seconded the motion. A roll cols vote was taken and the motion passed with Stanaway,Greaves, h"oster, Remy, Starr, and'Bloomer voting in favor. M$. Sybrowsky abstained, ' ./ 2LVR„ : . , a iequest by The Holtman Company for approval to develop a 41 lot single tinnily residential planned development and a Class II variance to allow construction of a sanitary sewer line through the wetlands. The site is located south of Cnuiuttt Drive,west of Waluga and north of Oakridge Road(Tint Lots 2200, 2300,2400 of Tax Map 21 B 7AC and ; Tax Lots 1100, 1301, 2200,23000 of Tax Map 2 18 7DB). Continued from March 5, 1990, Chair Foster read the hearing title and procedures. lie opened the hearing, The Board reported no ex parte contacts. $TArli Rl1J'Q. c Mr.Pishvaie presented Exhibit 41,a photo of the wetlands on Inverrie and Baleen,referenced in the memo dated March 30 and submitted by Rob Bower as a supplement to his March 14 F, letter, He reported that the City traffic engineer has reviewed the traffic study submitted by the applicant,and concurred,that there was to otga need for an intersection at Inverrie and Carman. He mentioned the issue-ofthe right of wa .throu ►a the wetlands as a factor in deciding against the ►nterscct►on,as well as whether or not the abutting properties on Carman, Baleen,and inverrie had alternative access points. Mr,I'ishvaie said that if the Board chose not to require the intersection, then staff'had: modifications to the conditions of approval as written. Staff recommended not,requiring the street improvements on Inverrie, He mentioned a concern that if Inverrie connected to Carman, it would become another collector like Waluga and Lake Forest 31vd. Chair Foster asked if Invenle would require a cultiesac eventually. Mr.Pislivuie said yes,and sonic realignment at the intersection of 13onair and tt verrie. Jerry Baker introduced Robert Keach,the traffic engineer who did the traffic study, and Jerry ;• Palmer who developed the alternate street layout at staffs request. Robert Keacli reviewed his conclusions regarding the connection at lnvcrrie, lie said that the area served by the street system could generate 4000 trips per day based on a denser ` population than currently existed. He noted a strong desire(60°,4)for the traffic to flow to the, north. He stated that a third intersection on Carman within a distance of 400 feet could potentially create a safety hazard. He.pointed Out that this could be come a convenient route A Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 1$ April 2, 1990 I for area residents with an estimated 1300 trips per day. He said that the adjacent collector streets, Waluga and Lake Forest Blvd,did have adequate capacity to handle the future expansion of the area, He stated that the connection was not necessary. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Keach said that they used the underlying zone of 12,500 square foot per lot.to calculate the potential density of the area in the future. They based the 1300 trips per day on full build out of the local area(south of Carman Drive), using the standard trip generation rate of 10 trips per day per household. APPLICANT Jerry Palmer referenced the exhibit showing the layout of a potential street system that could adequately serve the area without the Inverrie connection, He reviewed the criteria they used relative to the street system pattern, These included avoidance of a connection from Carman to Oakridge and the creation of an east-west collector system in lieu of public streets, avoidance of crossing the wetlands,elimination of the five way intersection at Baleen, Carman, and l'arkview by a culdcsac on Baleen, realignment of the Burma intersection at Carman, avoidance of Kimball and Inverrie ending in a culdesac, and respect for the existing homes. Mr, Palmer reviewed the map detailing the street outlay alternative, It proposed a culdesac on Inverrie south of the wetlands with a connection from Yorkshire to Bonair to provide traffic flow on the north end of Inverrie into Bonair and then onto Oakridge for access for the adjacent properties without crossing the wetlands, Another key clement was provision of a road parallel to the wetlands on the north ending in a culdesac with an intermediate connection to Carman at Burma (and realignment of this existing intersection), l le stated that this area could be served by a future streets plan and provide for the security of the wetlands, Chair Foster asked about the access for the three lots to the west of Inverrie, Mr, Palmer said that if they were built on adequately in relation to the flood level, they would use a private driveway going down to the culdesac, Chair Foster questioned whether the City could legally close down the public right of way and give it to those three'lots. Mr. Pishvttie said that the developers would have to request vacation of the right of way. 'The City had no plans at this time to vacate any of the right of way in the wetlands, Mr, Palmer reviewed the staff conditions requiring a half street improvement on Bonair to Yorkshire and on Bonair north of Yorkshire to Inverrie, He noted that the question before the Board was whether or not the half street irnprovetnents on Inverrie to the north property line were needed, He concurred that the improvements were necessary from Cukridge and Bonair to Yorkshire. He explained that they could not build out the culdesac on Inverrie because they did not own all that land. Mr. Baker reported that he has spoken with the owner of the land not owned by the applicant regarding the possibility of trading the Bonair right of way for the right of way going across the owner's property. While the owner was originally adamantly against doing so, Mr Baker said that he became more willing to consider it once he understood the usefulness of the sewer system connection to this area that had failing septic tanks. Since the owner wished to discuss the issue with his son, Mr. Baker said that he was willing to leave the decision up to staff as to Development Review Hoard Minutes Page 4 of 15 April 2, 1990 which way they went. If the owner did not agree to something by the time they needed their permits,they.would do the half street improvements from Yorkshire;if the owner agreed, they vv,ould run the improvements straight across, The property in question was Tax brit 1500 on Tax Map 2 1 C 7DB PROPQNCNTS Jan Pierce asked how this decision would impact the developer's suggestion to the neighbors to pave the unimproved section of Oakridge, Mr. Baker said that he would still do Oakridge Ms. Pierce said that she supported the plan, Mr. West, a gentleman from Inverrie Street,said that the neighborhood supported the plan, FIe asked whether the piece from Yorkshire to Inverrie should not be a full street improvement rather than a half street ii iprovensent to avoid tearing it up in five years to make a full street, improvement, Chair roster said that that issue was not within the purview of the Board, Mr, Greaves asked if the money for that half street improvement could not be;put in,a trust Bind until such time as the staff developed the future streets plan, Mr. Pi►hvaic said yes. Mr, Greaves pointed out a house next to the proposed cuidesae noted by Mr,flower in Exhibit 38. He asked if a future private drive would create a problem for this last house, Mr, Palmer said that the access could either continue as a driveway within the existing Inverrie off the culdesae or they could extend the culdesac in the final design. Mr. Greaves requested the staff report on the proposed conditions for approval of this application, Mr.Pislbvaic reviewed the modilientions to the conditions which consisted of deletions of'references to "Inverrie"(B6, 1314, C). Mr. Pishvaie commented that the findings could include a statement that the applicant'has provided a conceptual street plan for the neighborhood demonstrating that adequate access could be provided to all the abutting parcels on Baleen, Carman, and Inverrie, Chair Foster closed the public hearing for Board deliberations. Ms, Remy asked for clarif cation on what changes the Board was deciding on, Mr. Pishvaie said that the basic change was the elimination of an intersection at Inverrie and Carman rive Therefore the Board would not requite the half street improvement on tnverrrie. The Board agreed that this was an opportunity to avoid putting a road across the wetlands and that the alternative street plan provided a better way to handle traffic distribution and wetlands protection. The applicant Was willing to continue the Oakridge improvements. The staff modifications to the conditions were appropriate, Ms. Remy moved for approval of PI)21.89/VAR 2-90 in accordance with the deliberations of this Boe rd,and as conditions modified by staff, and (hat the Board made its decision based on the alternative street plan provided by the applicannl. Mr.Greaves Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 or 15 April 2, 1990 seconded the motion, A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mr. Stanttwny, Mr, Grcavcs, Mr, Foster, Ms, Remy, M . Starr, and Mr. Bloomer voting in favor, Ms, Sybrowsky abstained, .I 9QCVAR 10-90, a request by Glenn C. Chilcotc, A.13.A, The applicant is requesting approval to provide additional temporary office space for 12 months using a mobile commercial building 12' x 42', The applicant is also requesting approval for a variance to LOC 48,610(2)a to allow a temporary office for a period which exceeds two weeks, The site is located at 4255 Oakridge Road, 3 lots east of Quarry Road (Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map 2 1 t 8CR). Continued from March.5, 1990, Chair Poster read the hearing title and procedures. The Board reported no ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. STAFF,Rfl OJ1x: Lynn Bailey, Associate Planacr, said that the variance was necessary not only to increase the timeframe but also to allow this type of a structure in commercial and industrial districts, She noted that the staff recommended denial based on the building design standards and variance coda criteria. Staff found that the applicant has not adequately demonstrated the compatibility of the structure with the surrounding architecture nor provided evidence that it was a reasonable use similar to like properties or the minimum variance necessary, If the Board found otherwise, staff had conditions of approval for recommendation, Mr. Greavcs asked if there was a time frame within which someone could put in a mobile structure under Code, Ms. Bailey said not without a'variance, in commercial and industrial districts, the Code allowed a temporary tent type structure for a special event not to exceed three days. Al'11)141CANT Glenn Chilcote, 17125 SW Booties Perry Rood, explained that this application has been delayed because staff did not request the variance at the time they approved the submittal, Once they realized that they should have asked for the variance, the applicant had to go through the entire process again, resulting in a continuation, Mr. Chilcote explained that L.R. Squire & Associates was an established geotechnical firm with an excellent reputation growing rapidly in the current economic boom, He presented a series of slides showing the location of the current facility, the proposed location of the temporary office structure, the proposed location of the planned permanent addition,and views both into and from the site, He mentioned that two years ago they added 900 square feet to the original building- a remodeled 40 year old two bedroom house. Mr. Chilcote said that the residential neighbors have stated that they had no objections to the temporary structure. He mentioned that they would not have to remove any landscaping in order to site the structure, He pointed out the 1488 square foot mobile unit in the school yard, Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 15 April 2, 1990 almost three times the size of the proposed temporary structure. He cited`this as a similar use within the surrounding area. in response to questions from Chair roster,Mr. Chilcote said that they would paint the unit the same color as the building. They would prefer not to paint the light tan metal roof the same color as the main building but they could. He agreed to a condition limiting the time period to 12 months, He said that they would put in a gravel path to the side door for access. A wood skirt would mask the foundation of a steel frame set on concrete blocks, Mr. Chilcote explained that the area on which the temporary structure would sit was planned for parking for the permanent addition rather than relandscaping once the 504 square foot temporary structure was removed,They intended to save the majority of trees, The 3000 square foot permanent addition would be located on the south side of the main building. He submitted a schedule for the permanent building with a move-in date of May I, 1991 The temporary structure would be removed on that date, Mr. Chilcote stated that they have met all the zoning code requirements. tic pointed out that the Building Design ordinance 2,005 did not include the word"permanent"as part of the requirement to encourage good quality development. He argued that demonstration on how the structure was complimentary to adjacent structures of good design was a Judgment call, They were doing the best they could for a temporary structure,and understood that more stringent standards held for the permanent structure Mr.Chilcote reviewed the specific elements of building design used in designing this structure, These included wood siding painted Cape Cod Gray to match the main building, it 30 gauge metal roof painted the standard light gray, a roe?fline that did not exceed 11 feet at the peak,good proportions of 12' by 48',and various other architectural elements, lie said that he thought he could convince the owner to paint the roof blue if it was necessary for approval, He noted that the temporary structure would sit 130 feet off Otikridge Road and be scarcely visible, Mr. Chilcote explained that the intent of this unit was to relieve the current overcrowding in the main building until the permanent addition could be built over the next 12 months, He said that they did look into renting space elsewhere but because the business used a team approach, it was important to have everyone on the same site; Mr, Chilcote submitted into evidence a brochure on the mobile unit at the request of the Board (Exhibit 12). Mr, Graves asked if they could rent apartment space at the units next door, Mr; Chilcote said that while it might be feasible,he knew for a fact that those units were in high demand and rarely available, Mr.Chilcote addressed the issue of the variance criteria. He said that he thought that the staff conclusion that the hardship was sell-imposed missed the point of his variance narrative. Ile contended that one hardship came from the economic vitality of the region which has caused the firm to grow at an unexpected rate,thus creating overcrowding in the main building. Ile argued that the parklike setting deliberately maintained by the owner did place constraints on Development Review hoard Minutes Page 7 of 15 April 2, 1990 the property,partly because it contained skyline trees, The owner decided against building a to six story building on this site because he would have to take out so many trees Property development has been held back by the trees and landscaping. Mr, Chilcote concurred that no other temporary office structures existed in the City but cited the school mobile unit as an example of a temporary structure on adjacent property, Ile noted that it took a year to go through the development process, referencing the project schedule, laic contended that they could not submit an application for a permanent structure in the same time frame as they could for a temporary structure, He said that if they could put in a permanent structure, they would do so and not go to the expense of a temporary unit, Mr. Chilcote disagreed that this unit would be injurious to the site and the neighborhood. He reviewed the staffing conditions that created the overcrowded conditions in the main building, necessitating an additional four ofriees. He submitted a floor plan(Bxhil)it 13)showing the room layout in the main building. Mr. Stanaway asked why the planning for the new facility has not started, Mr. Chileote said that it has started but the owner waited until he was more confident that this business boom would last. In addition the new employees were just recently hired. Tile owner also needed to do some internal planning on staff organization and priorities. Ms. Bailey stated that Exhibits I I and 13 plus the statement that three additional employees would be added changed the staff finding. They found now that the minimum hardship necessary for a variance has been met, She said that the comparison with the school mobile unit was not valid as it was under different Criteria and zoning. Mien Rippey, 'Vice President and Principal of L.R. Squire& Associates, emphasized that they did have an immediate need. An overcrowded office hampered their ability to do their job well. Ile asked for approval of the request, kie confirmed that they were proceeding with plans for a permanent facility at this time, He reiterated that the team approach used by the firm made it ineffective to lease space offsite, Mr. Chilcote addressed the conditions staff was recommending if the appiicatiion was approved. Ile asked to deal with the street lighting and pathway deposit at the time of the permanent structure. They were willing to sign a non-remonstrance agreement for an LID in the future. I•le mentioned that the street light was brought,up at the time of the first addition, and that the Board found then that it was not necessary. Ms, Bailey confirmed that those were two conditions staff recommended as conditions of approval. They recommended the street lighting as a safety requirement. She explained that the pathway deposit was not normally covered by a remonstrance agreement as it came from a different code requirement. Chair Foster closed the public hearing for Board deliberations. Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of l5 April 2, 1990 DELIBERATIONS Chair Foster said that he thought that the applicant had demonstrated a need for a 12 month temporary structure, He asked for conditions of approval to paint the roof blue, to limit it to 12 months,to install the street light,to paint the skirt the same color gray as the building, and to come to agreement on the pathway deposit as recommended by staff, Mr. Greaves concurred. He pointed out that while there was no comparable property in the area with a similar use, that did not mean that the variance was not the appropriate mechanism to ask for a temporary structure, He expressed his displeasure with the use of the school mobile unit as a comparison, concurring with staff that it was a different situation. He mentioned the permanent structure in process, He said that the applicant has addressed why it was a reasonable use both in size and timing, and made it as complimentary as it needed to be for a temporary structure Mr, Starr said that he would support the application if it could be made to comply with city regulations to the satisfaction of staff, Mr, Greaves pointed that, based upon the evidence presented tonight, staff has agreed that this was the minimum variance neee,ssary. He said that the fact that there were no other similar uses in the city was not sufficient basis alone to deny the request. Mr. Starr pointed out that staff had additional concerns, Ms. Sybrowslcy said that she was sympathetic to the business need for more onsite space. She concurred with Mr. Greaves that the school was an inappropriate comparison, and a completely different situation. She indicated that she did not want to see applications for other structures of this sort Mr. Stanaway said that he was also sympathetic to the need for expansion but tclt any expansion due to growth created some hardship. He stated that he did not think that the applicant has demonstrated hardship to require a temporary facility, Iie contended that if this situation really involved much hardship,then the planning timeline for the permanent structure would occur more quickly. He did not support the temporary facility. Ms. Remy said that she was not opposed to a temporary structure for 12 months using this design and with the conditions mentioned by Chair Foster, She expressed concern that the 12 months could stretch into 24 months, She asked for a condition strictly limiting the temporary structure to a maximum of 12 months, Mr, Greaves said that while he agreed with the time limitation, the Board could not take away anyone's right to ask for an extension, Mr. Bloomer said that while he was also sympathetic to the business, he saw a lack of planning on their part resulting in the need for a temporary structure. Ilc expressed concern about the building design and its compatibility with the surrounding area, He did not think that the suggested conditions would adequately deal with the design problems. He agreed that this could easily slide from 12 months to 24 months, He held that it would set a dangerous precedent for other businesses to use as a temporary out instead of planning ahead. Mr. Stanaway moved for denial of DR ,1-90/VAR 10-90 based upon the fact that the applicant has not satisfied the burden of proof set out in the findings, and in accordance with the deliberations of this Board. Mr. Starr seconded the motion, A roll call vote was Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of Is 1 April 2, 1990 taken and the motion failed with Mr, Stanaway, Mr. Starr,and Mr, Bloomer voting in favor; Ms. Sybrowsky, Mr.Greaves,Mr.Poster,and Ms. Remy voted against the motion. Ms, Bailey presented the conditions which staff recommended if this application were approved. These included the street light,the pathway deposit, routing the roor and foundation drains into the existing drywell system,and a maximum one year time limit with no extensions, The Board agreed on conditions of installing the street light, a time limit maximum of 12 months,painting the roof blue, and tying the drains into the drywalls. Ms. Remy agreed to tt pathway deposit for a temporary structure as long as the applicant was not charged the same fee again for the permanent structure. They agreed on a condition that the landscaping of the site be reinstated to its former condition upon removal of the temporary structure. Ms. Remy moved for approval of DR 1-90/VAR 10-90 in accordance with the deliberations of the Board and the conditions so stated, Mr. Greaves seconded the motion, A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Sybrowsky, Greaves, Foster, and Remy voting in favor; Stanaway, Starr, and Bloomer voted against the motion, 0 INS-90/VAR 6-90 al,, a request by Oregon Management group for approval of eight duplexes on eight individual lots (16 units on 1 acre), The applicant is also,seeking approval for Class 2 Variances to reduce the required 10 foot setback to 7,5 feet on all or the lots [LOG 48,260(1)] and to reduce the setback based on height [LOC 48,260(5)1 from 24 to 10 feet one lot line at the northwest corner of the property. The applicant intends to have the right-of-way of an undeveloped alley vacated prior to development of the site, The site h located between Church Street and Wilbur Street on the west side of Furnace Street(Lots l-4, 11-14, Block 4, Oswego of Tax Map 2 113 i OAD), Chair Foster read the hearing title and procedures. The Board reported no ex parte contacts, conflicts of interest or bias. STAFF'REPORT Ms. Bailey referenced the staff report dated March 9. She said that the duplex proposal with Variance(b)could be made to comply with the applicable criteria. However staff found that inadequate evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that Variance(a), reducing the 10 loot setback to 7.5 feet on all lots, was the minimum variance necessary. Staff concluded that Variance(a)would also have an inferior effect on the site design. They recommended approval of the request except for Variance (b)with the conditions outlined in the March 9 staff report, She reviewed typographical errors in the staff report, Ms. Bailey mentioned that an outstanding issue that the Board needed to resolve was what right of way improvements should be required and were appropriate for this application. She said that Church and Furnace Streets required half street improvements with curb,gutter, and drainage while Wilbur Street only required a sidewalk improvement. She explained that because of the Old Town Design District standards,staff recommended only the following Development Review 13oard Minutes Page 10 of 15 April 2, 1990 minimum right of way improvements: Church and Furnace Streets paved to a 20 foot minimum width with three foot gravel shoulders adjacent to an asphalt sidewalk, and a five foot concrete sidewalk on Wilbur Street. Chair Foster reviewed the time limits for testimony. APPLICANT Ralph Olson,Olson Group Architects, noted the other developments Bill Headlee has done in town, including the first Addition Village and the Green at Glenmorric, lie mentioned that this site was designed to preserve the significant trees surrounding the site on the perimeter, for which they needed the variance, He noted that the target market for this development was older people whose children were gone,thus lessening the impact on the school district, Mr. Olson explained that the application included eight individual lots at the request of staff, The intent was to avoid eight hearings on the individual lots, He asked that some of the staff requirements be handled as though they were applying for individual lots-a minor development instead of all eight lots at once. They would prefer to handle the street improvement requirements through a non-remonstrance agreement for future street improvements at such time as the neighborhood formed an UI), Mr. Olson said that while they agreed with putting a sidewalk on Wilbur, they would prefer to not put in the half street improvements on Furnace and Church at this time, He spoke against improving the street lights to a standard not used throughout the remainder of the city. He said that the neighborhood preferred their lighting levels to stay the way they were now, He said that they would sign a non-remonstrance agreement for the lights also, Mr. Olson said that a 24 foot setback on Lot 11 would cut that lot in half and render it unbuildable, He explained that they asked for a 7.5 foot setback for flexibility in saving the significant trees on site, He submitted a drawing showing the net effect of shifting all the units towards the middle to save the perimeter trees. He pointed out that it was insignificant and did not affect the perimeter of the buildings relationship to the neighborhood, Mr. Olson mentioned that they would like to work with staff to handle the drainage. He suggested installing an additional catch basin on the northwest corner of the Wilbur and Furnace intersection. He pointed out that Mr. Headlee discussed his development with the neighborhood and got their approval prior to submitting his application to the City. Mr. Grooves asked if the lack of covered carports between Units 9 and 10 and Units 3 and were to save trees, Mr, Olson said yes, but there was adequate parking for all units, Chair Foster asked if the buildings were shifted to save one tree, Mr. Olson explained that they were trying to save three large trees but did not know until they exposed the root structures how much roomthey would need, He said that they would have an arborist on site I. at the time of excavation. Development Review Board Minutes Page I I of 15 April2, 1990 Butz Headlee read into the record a letter from I3i11 Headlee, Mr Headlee reiterated that they applied for all eight units at once, instead of individually, at the request of staff, `t'hese lots were in the original Lake Oswego plat and zoned for duplexes and would rent at moderate prices. He reviewed the staff requests for street improvements and lighting, He fisted other staff requests for undergroundinb of overhead wires and storm sewer improvements which he contended did not benefit this project. Mr. Headlee said this was a minor development subject to review by the Board only because it was within the Old Town Design;District. He argued that it was not subject to either major development review criteria or major development permit fees, He said that if these duplexes were forced to bear the cost of improving two city streets to city standards plus the additional costs of storm sewer, street lights, and sidewalks, it would increase the land costs by a minimum of 43%and make moderately priced housing impractical, He requested that the Board limit its approval to the compatibility of design with the existing neighborhood and divert the request for off site improvements to a non-remonstrance agreement for an LID. PROPONENTS Jamie Cilgen, 125 Wilbur, Lake Oswego, OR 97034,Old Town Neighborhood Association Chair,said that she represented those active in the neighborhood association. Last night the association voted in support of this project, She expressed their appreciation for Mr, 1-lcadlec's willingness to work with the neighborhood and address their concerns to create a building design that blended into their neighborhood, She said that the parking configuration had the least impact of any development they have seen, Ms, lllgen reviewed concerns that the neighbors had with the staff report, She said that they did not want their streets widened, citing speeding on.Leonard Street, She held that widening only one block of Wilbur would create dangerous problems. She noted that the remodeling of the Oddfeliows Hall project did not include any street widening, and did not see why Mr, Headlee should have to widen streets. Ms, lllgcn said that the existing street lights were more than adequate, The neighbors did not want additional sidewalks surrounding the development,although a sidewalk on.Wilbur would be fine since it was already improved. She expressed her confidence that Mr, tleadlec would handle the landscaping appropriately. She stated that she saw this project treated as a major development by the City,and it was only a minor development, She reiterated that a large percentage of Old Town residents did not want the improvements Walter Durham,Jr.,22 Honalea Drive,Lake Oswego,Ol 17034, said that he represented the three owners of the site: Grace McDermott, Murray Fraser,and himself, They supported the plan developed by Oregon Management Group and Mr, Olson as a development that made sense,added to the Lake Oswego tax base,and fit in with the character of the neighborhood He said that the Old Town Design District originated as an attempt to give more flexibility to reconciling the portion of Old Town west of State Street with the bluff on furnace Street overlooking the Willamette, He spoke to the development,having a minimum impact on the rural street characteristics while meeting the design necessities for drainage,curbs, and traffic proteetion, Development Review board Minutes Page 12 of 15 April2, 1990 Jean McGuire, 144 Wilbur,Lake Oswego,OR 97034,expressed her support of the project, She commented that Old Town wanted to preserve its historical character, and that part of that character was the lack of sidewalks and curbs, She held that Old Town could absorb the impact of the new residents without the street improvements, She said that raising the street light level was neither necessary nor desired by the neighbors. She stated that she felt that more of the vegetation could be saved and asked for consideration for sonic of the smaller shrubs. She spoke for an arborist on site during excavation, Karl Rohde,654 Ridgeway Road,Lake Oswego,OR 97034,concurred with a sidewalk on Wilbur but spoke against the street improvements on Church and Furnace, contending that they would destroy the integrity of Old Town, He asked that the Board grant the variance to preserve the single family,residence appearance of the duplexes, He supported the preservation of trees and the building design. Janet Banker,-425 Furnace Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034,pointed out that the existing sidewalk on Wilbur Street was only three feet wide. She spoke for the new sidewalk maintaining the same width for congruity. Margaret Leche, PO Box 26, Lake Oswego,OR 97034 said that while she did not oppose the project itself, she did have a concern with the sidewalks and streets, She reviewed the location of her seven acres on Furnace Street from Wilbur to Leonard, She explained that the et sonic flexibility ld n Desin developing ing theirn District �p proe pout erties athrough a timle ellbrts of e when theretwahe s no Comprehensivners to e Plan and the park nd commercial area we P encroaching. p Ms. Leche spoke for installing sidewalks and street improvements to provide safe access for visitors,pedestrians,and cyclists, She pointed out that a sidewalk on the Wilbur Street side would end at the edge of the property in the middle of the block,and suggested putting the sidewalk in all along the Furnace Street side. She said that she was not contacted by the developer and was not represented by the neighborhood association. RRLBUTTAI Mr. Olson pointed out that they had only one block that abutted Furnace Street, Improving only that one block left most of Furnace Street unimproved, He spoke for maintaining the character of the street by keeping it continuously the sane, Ms. Bailey Stated that staff found Exhibit 12, the redline plan,to be adequate evidence to justify the minimum variance criteria. She agreed with the request to maintain the street lighting as it was and defer the staff requirement to a non.remonatrance agreement, She concurred that putting in a catch basin on the northwest corner of Wilbur and Furnace was necessary to accommodate the drainage from the proposed development. She reiterated that staff was using the Design District Zoning to reduce the full city standard to obtain the minimum improvements necessary for pedestrian, cyclist, and auto safety. She pointed out that while the duplexes on individual lots were a minor development, the variance request was a Class 2 variance that required Board review, Development Review Board Minutes Page 13 of is April:2, 1990 At the request of Chair Foster, Ms, Bailey reviewed the requested street improvements. She mentioned that staff would like to see a drainage depression in the gravel shoulders on Furnace and Church. She stated that there was no further compromise on city standards that the staff could make with regard to the street improvements for reasons of safety. Chair Foster closed the public hearing for Board deliberations. DELIDERATIONS The Board commended Mr, Olson and Mr. I Icadlee for an attractive and tasteful development, They agreed that the variances were justified to preserve the trees and the residential appearance of the project. They discussed the street improvements, deciding that widening Furnace and Church Streets to 20 feet with gravel shoulders and an asphalt path would not be out of character with the neighborhood, The sidewalk on Wilbur should be reduced to there feet to maintain continuity, They agreed to add the second catch basin at Wilbur and Furnace, and to not require the street lighting. Ms, Bailey confirmed that the asphalt path on Furnace Street would serve the development only, and not tie in with the rest of the street. Ms. Sybrowsky expressed her sympathy with the neighbors' desire to maintain the character of Furnace Street but spoke to using new developments to correct problems, not maintain them. Chair Foster commented that in his experience as a landscape architect,he found that it was better in the long run to put in new shrubbery rather than trying to preserve existing shrubbery, Ms, Remy moved to approve OR 3-90/VAR 6-90(a-b) in accortlar ce with the conditions of the staff report and the deliberations of this Board, and the.recommendations on the street which included a 3 foot sidewalk on Wilbur,a pathway, gravel shoulder and pavement on Furnace and Church Streets, lights to remain the same, grant the variances on the setback, to work with staff to satisfy the drainage problems on Furnace and Wilbur, and to retain an arborist• Ms. Sybrowsky seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mr. Stanaway, Ms, Sybrowsky, Mr, Greaves,Mr, Foster, Ms, Remy, Mr. Starr, and Mr. Bloomer voting in favor. VI. GENERAL PLANNING None VII. OTHER BUSINESS-Findings, Conclusions.and Order PI) 19-S9/VAIR 8490—M-B Development The Board discussed the receipt of additional information from Vivian Shaves regarding flood elevations, They agreed not to reopen the hearing to accept it into the record, Development Review Board Minutes Page 14 of l$ April 2, 199D VXXI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Foster Adjourned the t»eet ng at 11:10 p.m. I Respectfully Subt fitted# Barbara Anderson Senior Secretary Develepnient Review Board Mirluites Page 15 of 1$ April 2, 1990 • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES March 19, 1.990 ATW v VEfl I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review 13oard meeting of March 19, 1990 Was allied txy order by Chairman roster at 7;34 p.m. 1[ ROLL CALL Board members present were M5, Sybrowsky, Mr. Grcttv,,� Foster,►. Ms. Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr, Stanaway, Mr Bloomer was excused, Also present were Robert Galrante, Acting Planning Director.Ilam.id Pishvaie,Development Review Planner; Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney; and Kathy Avery, Secretary, III, APPROVAL OF MINUTES—None IV, PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS—None V. PUBLIC HEARING 1lJ3..1— \Xt1At ..10-9P,a request by Glenn E. Chilcote, A.I.A. The applicant is requesting approval to provide additional temporary office space for 12 months using a mobile commercial budding 12' x 42'. The applicant is also requesting approval for a variance to LOC 48,510(2)a. to allow a temporary office for 4 period which exceeds two weeks. The site is located at 4255 Oakridge Road,3 lots east of Quarry Road (Tax Lot 400 of"flax Map 2 .I 8CII). Continnesliamalatch1,1990. Due to the '1rliatiec,x eon.01 ll item will be rughe'dtded for.tl .Al r , .1g� Ms. Remy moved to continue 0,1tJA0 Y to April 2, 1990. Mr, Starr seconded the motion and it carried with Mr+ Stanaway, Ms, Sybrowsky, Mr.Greaves, Mr. Foster,Ms, Remy and Mr. Starr all voting yes, '_I? 2 8 ARJ6 a request by M-8 Development for approval to develop a 32 lot single family residential development and a variance to LOC 44.390 which limits a cul—de—sac or dead—end street to 1,000 feet in length. The site is located south of Childs Road and north of Dogwood Drive between Sycamore Street and Canal Road (Tax Lots 100& 101 of Tax Map 21 z 19A ► and Tax Lots 400, 500,600,700,800,900 of Tax Map 2 IE 2013C). Chairman roster discussed the hearing process and inquired if there was any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Chairman Foster clarified than he had been a consultant with Scientific Resources on several projects but not on the 'Y current project so it would not affect his partiality on the hearing. Minutes 3/19/90 Page 1 of 11 0 Hamid Pishvaie,Development Review Planner,submitted Exhibit.24,a letter from the City of Rivergrove, lie pointed out that staff had reviewed the letter and had no problems with the recommendations listed, but he mentioned a requesm t with disc item ussed w visibility.staffs suppor ted varitnce ized the applicant's lconcludetl request and u reasonsY PP Heo by stating that staff recommended approval of the application with the:38 conditions listed in the staff report, Chairman Foster inquired if the City of Rivergrove had any plans to improve Sycamore or Dogwood Roads and Mr,Pishvaie responded that he bad not heard anything about that, Applkiuit Q .,Y nth11�Y,y,Allorney.,.12 iallQr_ris:( ttt.a,Porthuiti stated that he represented the applicant and they were in agreement with the staff report and supported the conditions listed, He noted that the applicant had addressed all applicable legal criteria. He stated than the applicant had been very sensitive towards developing the property and preserving the natural resources of the site. He discussed the applicant's willingness to dedicate open space in the wetland area for a park. He noted that 50% of the property would be preserved as open space and compared it to the 20% required by the City, He stated that the applicant would continue to allow public access to the site to minimize the impact on the neighbors. He stated that the applicant was prepared to improve Canal Road and to protect the stream corridor area. He listed the reasons for the 0 proposed variance. > .GtatSkeigcr,Scientific T{estlurcesJnc discussed the basis for his wetland delineation boundary report, He discussed the diverse types of soils and vegetation found on the proposed site. He stated that the distance between the lots and the wetland area was adequate because storm water would have the opportunity to be diverted through the dense vegetation prior to entering the wetland, I Mr. Greaves noted the proximity of Lot 6 to the wetland and asked if that lot might interfere with the wetland. Mr.Hathaway responded that,although a conservation easement was not planned for the back of that lot,the applicant could accommodate that if the Board felt it was necessary, Chairman roster inquired if there was a plan to create a weir or structure to control the outflow of the water. ;Mr, Geiger responded that there was water feeding the wetland,the wetlands were operating well and the applicant had no plans to dam up the water. Chairman Foster asked if there was any open water or if there was only grass land and Mr.Geiger responded that there was temporary ponding, Chairman Foster noted that there would be increased water runoff and asked it there would be any flooding problems. Mr, Geiger responded that the area showed signs of flooding already. Ms, Sybrowsky inquired if the applicant had a chance to review the letter from the City of Rivergrove, Mr.Hathaway responded that they had reviewed it and had no objections to any of the recommendations except recommendation #8, 40 He commented that he disagreed with the request that a fence be placed between Minutes 3/19/90 Page,2offl . , the private lots and the 25 foot conservation easement because they would like to leave a natural easement. Ms. Sybrowsky mentioned the dedication of a public park to the City and asked if there would be any public facilities, Mr. Hathaway responded that it would be up to the City but Mr. Geiger had recommended that the park be left as natural as possible, Mr. Pishvaie stated that the park would be open to anyone, but City staff had no plans to create,paths at that time. Ms. Sybrowsky inquired about the enforcement of the conservation easement. Mr. Hathaway responded that there could be a deed restriction which the City could enforce as a condition of approval. Mr, Greaves asked if the applicant was planning on using fill as was originally suggested in the application.n. Mr. Tatha a responded that the ap_. plicant was not planning to use fill and would comply with the staff recommendation when , dealing with the flood plain issue. Mr, Greaves inquired if the Solar Access Ordinance applied to the project and Mr, Pishvaie responded that it did. Chairman Foster inquired if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of the project. Seeing none, he inquired if there was anyone wishing to speak opposed to the project. DpusuLenls Co1m ..EIu nliolts�, .� ci�r Fricusls.Df UrYtuu. &.usls Nal.utvlark • . stated that the president of the organization, Dave George was not available. ' She stated that there had not been enough time to get their group together and requested that the hearing be continued to the next meeting, She expressed her opinion that the project would have a negative impact on their park, She disagreed with the staff report where it stated that there were no trails or pathways on the property. She submitted and discussed a wetlands study prepared by Esther Love for the City. She discussed how a large development would negatively affect her area. She stated that the soil was unstable and she was concerned about the backup of water against Childs Road, Chairman Foster inquired where the park was at and Ms. Emmons described the location of the park. Chairman Foster asked where the pathways were across the wetland area and she explained that there was a notable worn pathway from Sycamore to Canal Road, Sue Grant,42S1 Woodside ircle go 703S stated that the wetland was a valuable resource and she would like to see it kept intact. She referred to the staff report which listed an estimated 320 car trips per day and expressed concern about the impact that would have on the habitat of animals. Shcrrv..ltiat,ie,CsQn,.Rosewoosl Aotion Group i.ghboth ,d sso iatistn ,1892653E CrCskw acid Avg.,-Lakellivxegit.97035 mentioned that Mr. Mitchell had come up with three different proposals, one of which included a 11 commercial ice skating rink. At one point he stated that there would be 13 units, which the community was concerned about. He was currently proposing 32 units which meant an estimated 320 traffic trips per day and the community was 0 very concerned about the traffic impact, She requested that the transportation Minutes 3/19/90 Page 3ofi[ 0 issue be addressed before the Board decided on the application, She noted that Bryant Woods Park was listed in the Lake Oswego Physical Resource Asset List. She expressed concern with additional runoff into the polluted Tualatin River and with the school capacity issue, She pointed out that there were wetlands on both sides of Childs Road and the Army Corps of Engineers would need to be contacted in order to widen the road. She expressed concern with additional traffic through the intersection of Sycamore and Childs roads where there was a hill. She suggested that opening up Lots 17 and 18 with an access directly onto Sycamore was more logical, She remarked that the applicant lacked caring and knowledge of the wetlands. Ms. Remy asked questions about animal migration in the area. Ms. Patterson responded that what was already there was less than desirable and it would get worse with the new development. lklt L inii 4540 S,Wj)tgwwoo la Jake Os g ' Q S.explained reasons for the existence of wctltinds and how they dry up, Ile mentioned that the City of Rivergrove recognized.Sycamore Road as an emergency evacuation 1 road from flooding. He expressed concern that allowing the development could cause water to back up and flood Sycamore. lie stated that the wetlands would be destroyed by taking away its natural source of water,especially if the amount of pavement was increased in the area, He emphasized that the development would be counterproductive to the preservation of the wetlands which were i invaluable and irreplaceable. Chairman Poster asked Mr. Primi tno to explain why he wits concerned at one point with the wetlands drying up, and then the next about them flooding. Mr, 0 Prinniano explained that under normal conditions with the development there, the wetland would dry up, during a 100-year flood, Sycamore could flood because of the development, L t aatial d ft 4t 110. suggested that there be a dedicated walkway through Lots 17 and 18. He expressed concern that there were no shoulders along Childs road between Canal Road and Sycamore. He mentioned that the Rivergrove school had no buses. RobQCt Ellis t G78,Perch Courts Lake Owego 970,34..likened Mr. Mitchel( to a chameleon because he kept telling the community whatever he felt they wanted to hear, He mentioned that Childs Road wasvery narrow and dangerous. He discussed the traffic backup during peak hours and remarked that having 32 more houses would only make the scenario worse. Ile discussed the various animals he had seen in his neighborhood, He remarked that the animals would no longer migrate through the wetlatttda to Bryant Woods Park,especially down the paved street, He mentioned the large cottonwood tree that could be affected if Canal Road was moved 2 feet and asked that it be preserved, He expressed concern with runoff water in the wetlands and the contaminants it blight contain, lie summarized by remarking that a number of significant issues had not been addressed. .0.1.11,11iLCO.YainUailitia11.5PritIgiatgiVaillktaingo,..9.20,35 stated that the development would be at plug to all animal traffic to and from the Tualatin.River area into the Bryant Woods area. Minutes 3/19/90 Page 4 of 11 0 Vivian Seheans,4660 Sa. Dogwood Drive.Lake OswegQ97035 asked what elevation was used when the 100 year flood was figured. She stated that the City of Rivergrove used 132 feet for their 100 year flood level and she noted that Lots 17 and 16 were at 113 feet which was below the flood level for Rivergrove, She was concerned that too much fill would kill some vegetation and she asked where the fill would come from, She was concerned about the affect that the runoff would have on the area septic systems, She noted that dormant plants were not listed on the vegetation inventory and suggested there were another 100 additional plants, She asked if Dogwood and Sycamore streets would be used during construction and she asked if there would be sewer access. Maria Eabiszt,A500 S M.West Road,Lake Oswego 97035 expressed concern with construction equipment entering at the dangerous intersection of Childs and Canal roads. She submitted pictures of the intersection for the record, She explained that the access to West Road must never be blocked along Canal Road because it was their only access road. She stated that the Canal bridge was deficient according to the Clackamas CountyTransportation and Development Department. She stated that it needed to be ascertained whether the pipe underneath Canal Road would hold up under heavy construction equipment. She addressed the Japanese beetle quarantine and mentioned that the applicant was not to the issue� , I sensitiveissue. pl Mark Bataisflt}45i10$.W, West Roal Lake Omega 970.35 requested that the issue of sewer hookup for Rivergrove residents be in writing, Ile also requested that it be stipulated that there be no pay back fee for those residents who wish to 411 hook up to the sewer system, Ile concurred with all other points in the letter submitted by the City of Rivergrove, RonjUktolf,j922kIly,.;Iuc uuitring. rc .L tks,OS 4r. c,27035 concurred with prior testimony given. He stated that his major concern was the additional pedestrian:traffic created from the project going own Childs Road, Jim obertson, I i72 West wad Ito Road,Lake_ M9,20..3 stated that he liked the plan except that he would like to see the sewer line carried on to Sycamore Street, Niialdarlau, Presidentsaf Rivergrove (.4t."LCstun 16.5 :3 . og1Y.99 l nrived,alit stwet!? Q3S urged the Board to accept the recommendations submitted by the City of Rivergrove in their letter, Ms. Remy asked if any studies had been done on the wildlife in the area, Mr. McFarlan responded that the City of Lake Oswego did have a study which inventoried a lot of natural resources in the city and a study was also attached to the staff report, aamisµStepitens,J U.41 S VV. Indian, li i aiar lealikc, ?hint. U,3 expressed concern that the Board didn't have the environmental impact statements or information which would be required to make a decision on the land. He inquired if any Board members had been out to the proposed 40 development site and Chairman Poster responded that they had, Minutes'3/19/90 Page 5 of II 0 Caroline Gutmann, 18011 .Wa Ke�a1c I oads Lake Osy egQ.97O34 started that she had spent a lot of time walking through the park. She agreed that no one had checked out the environmental impact the development would have on the site, Matsu l sn n�__ _ clly.58Q$ ktik1s2tuMs slake Oswego..22035 stated that her major concern was traffic and she questioned how the City of Lake Oswego could approve a development on a street which they had no control over, She • concurred with prior testimony. Neither For Nor Against Phil Scoles, 149 Middle Crest Road ha ce CQswcgo97034.stated that he was a wetland professional and had visited the site. He stated that he generally concurred with the wetlands report done by Scientific Resources Inc. He recommended that the wetland boundary be reaffirmed since the original boundary was determined during the off:season, lie suggested that the boundary may be five or ten feet closer to the upland, He recommended that SRI coordinate the study with the Division.of State Lands and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to confirm the wetland boundary, He discussed concerns with lots 7-10 because they might cut off the wildlife travel routes, He observed that the wetland extended further south and west. I=Ie stated that the proposed park had more substantial wetlands than l3ryant Woods Park, IIe recommended that the trails go around the periphery of the park rather 0 than going through it, Ms. Remy inquired about his profession and he responded that lie was a soil and water scientist who did wetland delineations regularly, Chairman Poster asked how he had made the determination that the wetland was larger than SRI decided, Mr. Scales responded that he had referred to the wetland delineation flags and he based his study on those. Chairman Poster asked if the wetland was delineated as Mr. Scoles proposed, would it significantly alter the plan. Mr. Scoles responded that he was not familiar enough with the plan to make that determination, CQ I I uu1t n$submitted a study done by Esther Love, Charle.illouriXtuUdalitDovego Corporations 75401 pgli n Drivts LLake OsWeg commended City staff for the job they had done in engineering the project and he noted that they had used the highest standards available. He also mentioned his pleasure with Stan Geiger's work, He listed his concerns which included that the canal would become an attractive nuisance and he requested that a fence be placed along its perimeter, lie asked for interim drainage control while the project was being built and he requested a heavily landscaped buffer zone. Chairman Poster asked if the entire perimeter of the canal should be fenced and Mr. Bourbeau responded that he would like to see that eventually. 41) I ' j Minutes 3/19/9( Page 6of I Janice McChrthv.19666 S.V6�.Cain is Road.Lake Oswegs Q ;.slatted that she owned the only house on Canal Road and the road was her only access to her property, She noted that if the road were moved twenty—five feet as proposed, it would overlap her property. She requested clarification of the relocation of Canal Road. RokettEl issm noted that the east bank of the canal from the Tualatin River to Childs Road already had a six foot chain—link fence, Reba teal Greg Hathaway stated that the applicant had submitted all applicable information, He remarked that he took offense to comments that things were not looked into enough. He pointed out that the site Was planned and zoned for residential use and the question wasn't whether it would be developed but how it would be done. He emphasized that the wetlands would be preserved. He pointed out that the applicant had agreed to the conditions suggested by the City of Rivergrove and City staff. He stated that the applicant did have concerns about the fence proposed by the Lake Corporation because of the;possible negative effect in terms of habitat and animal migration along the river, t C ei ; remarked that the factors affecting the wetland were the runoff from the hillside in Rivergrove, Fie pointed out that the housing in the area had already limited the wildlife migration, 0 Chairman Foster inquired if the wetland delineation flags that Mr. Scoles referred to were the correct flags and Mr. Geiger responded that they probably were. Mr.Geiger clarified that the indicators which define a wetland exist any time of the year, so that even though his study was done on an off—season, the analysis was still accurate. Chairman Foster asked if moving the wetlands five feet would affect the;layoutol the development, Mr, Geiger responded that it might impact Lot 6 but the rest of the development shouldn't be affected. Mr. Stanuway pointed out that Mr. Scoles testified that Lots 7-10,26-27 would be affected, Mr, Geiger responded that it wasn't his judgement that those lots would be affected, Mr. Greaves asked what would happen now It'there was a 100 year flood. Thm,Amberl,'revjinicil JtiginecringJ nrldn l responded that a 100 year flood would cover Sycamore and flow over Canal Road into the canal, Mr. Greaves asked if there was anything in the development which would affect the holding capacity of the wetland, Mr. Amberg responded that nothing would change the capacity, and ifthere was some filling, it would not significantly change the 100 year floodplain elevation. Mr. Amberg stated that the 100 year flood plain elevation for the site was 118 feet and that the figure of 132 feet was way too high, Mr.Greaves asked for an explanation of how Childs Road interrupted the hydrology of the area and if Childs Road created the wetland, Mr. Amberg,responded that Childs Road could be the obstruction causing the wetland to back up. He pointed out that the high spot was at Mitchell Drive, ill Minutes 3/19/90 Page 7 of 11 • Mr. Greaves inquired if there was sufficient filtration capacity at the intersection of Canal Road and Childs Road. He asked if the swales would be able to function sufficiently to service the lots that they drain. St Gasifier explained that the water would flow slowly and the particulates Imentioned h woulddropout. e t at the water would also flow through the � vegetation before it went into the wetlands. He stated that he felt there was a lot of opportunity to take advantage of natural vegetation to disperse the water before it entered the wetland and he didn't see it as an insurmountable problem. Greg Hnt.l]s`wax stated that the traffic information that the applicant had been utilizing was provided by the City. He explained that the capacity for Childs Road as a collector was approximately 17,000 cars per day, only 3,000 were using it currently, and the proposed development would add approximately 320 more. Be said that the applicant would be making improvements to Canal Road to accommodate the additional vehicles. He stated that his understanding from staff was that there was no sight distance problem at the intersection of those two roads. John DeY ;tt gjechnleal Engineqripg 5 S.W. Canyon Lan .4..U. , Portland stated that the applicant's intent was to widen Canai Road to twenty- four feet with a sidewalk. Chairman roster inquired if there would be any changes to the bridge and Mr. DeNoung responded that they didn't anticipate any changes to the bridge since it was twenty-two feet wide, Ile stated that Childs Toad was designated as a City pathway road and the developer would have to deposit money with the City for the pathway. He stated that they would (110 be working with,the Parks Department to determine the location of the pathway, which would give safe pedestrian actress to the people who wished to walk along Childs Road, Chairman Foster mentioned the concerns of residents about having access to their homes during construction and Mr.DeYoung responded that they would have continuous access. Chairman roster asked about erosion control and Mr. DeYoung stated that with their improvements,the drainage would be maintained at the road which would mean less runoff into the canal with modifications. The Board asked if the improvements to Canal Road could be done without affecting the house along the road and the large cottonwood. Mr.DeYoung responded that the improvements could be done and that it was a requirement of the City to save the cottonwood. Mr. Greaves asked about the sight distance problem due to the brush at the intersection of Canal Road and Childs Road, Mr. DeYoung responded that there was adequate sight distance, but any trimming required would be done by the developer as part of construction, Ms. Remy asked about the variance on the distance of the cul-de-sac and why the street was not carried through to Sycamore between Lots 17 and 18. Mr. DeYoung responded that the City of Rivergrove did not want additional traffic on Dogwood or Sycamore. He explained that the applicant proposed a 40 foot right-of-way emergency access with a gated entry but the City of Rivergrove didn't want that either. lie explained that the applicant had tried to incorporate the wishes of the neighborhood into the design which resulted in a cul-de-sac 0 longer than 1,000 feet. Minutes 3/19/90 Page 8of1l Mr. Greaves asked if Dogwood or Sycamore would be used for construction. Mr Hathaway responded that neither of the roads would be used for construction or traffic Cireulation_generated by the development. Mr. Greaves asked if the sewer connection would be extended further down Canal ;toad and how the fees would work, Mr.Pishvaie responded that as part of River Run 1 and 2 on the east side of the canal,Quadrant Corporation extended the sewer line over 1,000 feet, They reached an agreement with the City that anyone that developed property or tried to connect within a certain time frame, would have to paya set fee toQuadrant. lie statedthat he didn't know what kind of an agreement nt Lake Oswego had with River grove and suggested that it would be a Council decision, Chairman Poster asked for comments on the six foot fence along the canal. Mr. I-xathaway stated that the applicant was concerned that it would prevent the free movement of wildlife from the canal to the property, but the applicant would do it up to a point if the'Board required it, Mr. Greaves asked if the applicant had any comments on the school issue. Mr. Hathaway stated that the applicant would rely on the staff report and the becentber 5, 1989 letter from the City Council on the school Issue. Chairman Foster asked staff about the Japanese beetle quarantine, Mr, Pishvaie responded that the issue was covered in;lixhibit 22. Seeing no further testimony, the public portion of the hearing was closed for 0 Board deliberation. ILeILbV tat ia11 1, The Board concurred that the wetland had been delineated correctly. 2. The Board recommended that the applicant work with staff to review the size and characteristics of each of the swales to be sure that they would be of sufficient capacity for the lots that they would drain. 3. The Board requested that the issue of standing water on Lots 16 and 17 be examined and that the wetland boundary be reviewed with staff regarding those lots to ensure that the lots were outside the wetlands. If the lots were not outside, then significant alterations should be made in the lot line boundaries, 4. The Board commended the applicant for responding to the wetland issue and delineating its boundaries, 5. The Board agreed that a fifty foot conservation easement should extend across the northern boundary of Lot 6. 6. The Board requested that the applicant work with his environmental consultant and staff to come up with a fencing plan for the development • which would satisfy the criteria for animal migration. Minutes 3/19/90 Page 9ofli Is' d1r 7, The Board agreed with the gravel road relocation but required the applicant to wo;k with an arborist to preserve the cottonwood tree, 8, The Board agreed that the variance to increase the length of the cul-de- sac was justified. 9, The Board concurred that pedestrian access should be allowed between Lots 17 and 18, with staff deciding upon the size and surfacing of the access. I Mr. Greaves moved for approval of EQ.19,49/YAR,..84-44 in accordance with the recommendations listed in the staff report and as amended by the Board. Ms.Sybrowsky seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Stanaway, Ms. Sybrowsky, Mr.Greaves, Mr, Foster, Ms. Remy and Mr. Starr voting yes. DR 3-90`VMR 6--91)_( , a request by Oregon Management Group for Development Review Board approval for the following minor development: eight duplexes on eight individual lots (16 units on 1 acre). The applicant is also seeking approval for the following Class 2 Variances: a) reduction or the required 10 foot setback to 7.5 feet on all of the lots [1,0C 48.260(1)1; and b) reduction of the setback based on height.[LOC 48.260(5)1 from 24 to 10 feet for one line between the lots. The applicant intends to have the right-of-way (shown on Exhibit 1) vacated prior to development of the site. The site is located between Church Street and Wilbur Street on the west side of Furnace Street (Lots 1-4, 11-14, Block 4, Oswego of Tax Map 2 11. i 0 I:OAI) Mr. Starr moved to continue 1)I2 340/A11_6779Q 41.w12),to April 2, :1990. Ms.Remy seconded the motion and it carried with Mr.Stanaway,Ms. Sybrowsky,Mr. Greaves,Mr. Po ter, Ms, Reniy and Mr.Starr voting yes. Vt. OTHER BUSINESS-Findings,Conclusions and Order Chairman Foster moved for approval of .. . 2 -$ ,62,' Findings, Conclusions and Order. Ms. Remy seconded and it passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr. Greaves, Mr, Foster, Ms. Remy, and Mr, Starr voting yes, Ms. Sybrowsky abstained. Mr. Greaves moved for approval of VAR 1-90{a s , Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr, Starr seconded and it passed with Mr, Stanaway, Mr. Greaves, Mr. Foster, Ms. Remy,Mr. Starr voting yes. Ms, Sybrowsky abstained. Chairman Foster announced that there would be a joint city tour with the Planning Commission and City Council on May 19, 1990. Minutes 3/19/90 Page 10 of 11 • VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Board, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p,m, Respectfully Submitted, Kathy Avery Secretary kaatt • 0 , Minutes 3/19/90 Page 11 of 11 ~ 1 / sl .•Fie '+!` '•. . /^�t OF LAKE ��/�/^�/� 0� , CITY LAKE OS�"i EG\J a �. `4, 4a. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES • MONDAY, MARCH S, 199(1 ;r 1 r� j,,4 � I. CALL TO ORDER ,, M The Development Review Board meeting of March 5, 1990 was called to order by Chairman Foster at 7;30 p.m. ., II. ROLL CALL ' Board members present were Mr. Bloomer, Mr, Foster, Mr, Creaves, Ms, Remy, Mr. � %$ 1k I Stanaway and Mr. Starr, Ms,Sybrowsky was excused. Also present were Robert - : Galante, Acting Planning Director; Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Planner; ' : • Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner; Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney; and Barbara Anderson, Secretary, III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES t ,r,' !+! , a Approval of the minutes was delayed until the special meeting of March 12, 1990. IV, PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. GENERAL PLANNING "`13 j')1 3. 4(12 Acre City Park south of Melrose Street, adjacent to the Westlake F ire F �� � ,� lit Station). This project was approved on March 23, 1989 with the condition that the `u';° ball field lighting be reviewed by the Board. The staff will provide the Board with a 'c,+''1 Anal iighting plan, F �,. Mr. Galante suggested the Board consider moving this item to the number oneposition because it was very brief, The Board agreed that DR 3-89 should be handled first. Mr, Galante updated the Board on the project, explaining that the proposal was approved `! subject to Development Review Board review on the final lighting plan. Mr. Poster ; ' y!„ noted for the record that the Board was reviewing the plans. Greti_Kur..t11iashi, ()TAt , 17355 S,%V.,13oonas Pr.a:.y.JI.+..tu(,. ,ttkc ,.sxtet Qdiscussed ; " the lighting levels around the park. He 8.tated that 25 ft, candles would be used for the outfield and 30 ft, candles for the interior portion of the field, Mr, Kurahashi described ", the lighting elevations, spacing ands intensity for the infield and outfield and the perimeter .gym of the park, 1• TALQ1,I]ltlll.;E:tll11eYa..Il,tS ce Igil1.+t'rl[l , ?.'5. , 'i.141. ',. 12.ili.r. tl 'V.lt .C',0 ;'; , ,explained that underneath a regular street light there would be 20 ft, candles and then as far away as 30 ft. it would be a 1/2 foot candle, The Board asked about the color of the lighting. Mr, Raley stated that metal-halide (blue)lighting would be used,because it is as close to natural as possible. w , . DRB Minutes 3/5/90 ;s 14w.;. Page 1 of IG , n' tip, , rhr4 • ioThe Board asked staff about a lighting schedule. Mr. Galante responded that the lighting would only be on for scheduled events, Seeing no further testimony, Chairman Foster closed for Board deliberation. Mr. Groves moved for approval of the Lighting Plan on DR '1—ti9 in accordance with the plans submitted by OTAB. Mr. Starr seconded and the motion carried with Mr. Stanaway, Mr;Greaves, Mr. Poster, Ms. Remy,Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes, V. PUBLIC HEARING ,1$419..,a request by Homesite Ucvelopment Corp, for approval of a 32lot single family residential planned development. The site is located north and south of Iron Mountain Blvd,,and west of Summit Drive, otherwise known as (Tax Lots 201 and 600 of Tax Map 2 1E 9 and Index). The hearing will be reopened to consider access to 3-6 of Block 2 and sidewalks on Ridgewood Roat1, Continued from February 21, 1990, Chairman Foster asked if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. llear ng none, he discussed the hearing timelines and procedures, Mar, Foster then asked for a staff report. Mr. i'ishvaie discussed the. background and history of the l)rajet,t, l le stated that the Yr reopened consider acc_ sto Lots 3—C of Block 2 and the sidewalk hearing, was being ret �n4d toe t ! � p . ` issue,. Mr, I?ishvati.entered two designal>tit5tts for the revised plans (Exhibits 83—$8), :w lie discussed the staff analysis of each option and stated that stall`was rccomtnending option number 2, Mr, hishvaie noted that staff found the sidewalk to be necessary, Applicant At titttLK 'Lcitivi aitom ft I) PPili . L fl $ Y. S UY 'uri anti discussed the previous meetings and tentative Board decision, The applicant stated that he had chosen alternative number 1 because there was a sight distance problem on alternative number 2, there would be 10 fewer trees removed on alternative number l., alternative number 2 requires more blasting,cuts into the hillside would be 63% less with alternative number 1, the degree of slope would be between 2* 11% grt'th on alternative number I and alternative number 2 would allow aconsistent 15% .„de, Mr. Piculell noted that page 2 of the alternative plans showed the design of the retaining wall, which would be natural looking in character, The Board questioned the applicant about the turnaround. Alternative number 2, as shown, would require cutting more trees. Dill I,cari&g,, `estcrn l'ltllmo'. gA$suc,%aLc S stated that the turnaround was rotated on alternative number 2 because of the grade, Mr. Florning stated that alternative number 2 stalled 20' lower thtt;l alternative number 1. The Board questioned the applicant about the meandering wall, Mr. I lorning explained that there v, re some existing basalt cliffs that would be emulated with the meandering wall, Over time, the meandering wall would look like a ntttttral part of the topography. The Board asked the applicants if they had considered using aggregate materials instead. of smooth mate-i;ils for the wall, Mr, Horning said that would be feasible. The Board questioned the alit *cant about the possibility of a guard rail at the top of the wall. Mr, DR13 Minutes 3/5/90 Page 2 of 16 ;t;:,,,, Horning stated that there would he a guard rail; however, they had not decided what type R,, , of guard rail it would be, Chairmtua Poster asked for proponents to come forward. Heating none, he asked for opponents, I fearing none, Chairman Poster asked for persons neither in favor nor opposed. 'tearing none, Chairman Poster closed the!hearing for Board deliberation, D li.b .Eattiol Ivlr. Greaves discussed Mr, Miller's concerns regarding the issues on the slope and on the calculations, which were incorrect, lie stated that adequate evidence had been submitted to support the application, The other issue Mr, Miller had been concerned about was the massing or the size ot'the face of the wall as you come out from the Village Drive intersection, The appearance of a shear concrete retainingwall would be a detraction to the neighborhood, 'the meandering wall, the faceting, the types of materials and colors would address this concern, Mr. Greaves noted that staff could leave the authority to review these materials, knowing what the Hoard's intent would be The Board agreed that alternative number 2 would be the best alternative because a wall behind Lots 4 and 5 would be offensive, it would be more pleasing to the eye and eliminate the need for a guard rail at the tope The Board agreed that a smaller wall behind Lot 4 could be reviewed for materials by staff, The Board found that it would be necessary to continue the sidewalk, Mr. Groves moved for approval of 1'1)1.8 89 alternative likt3.uber,2,as presented by the applicant, in accordance with the staff ieconatnended conditions and the additional condition added that the materials review for the concrete retaining wail be submitted to staff for staff approval, Also, the shlthe Advil milkswitipcItarejko.,wnma the ptttluhulJJ esu.mplctvtLi.t aceo dunce YitIi those plans, Ms. Remy seconded the motion and it carried with Mr, Graves, Mr, foster,Ms. Remy and Mt Starr nil voting yes. Mr. Bloomer and Mr, Stanawey abstained, Mr. Pishvttie stated that Mr, Ronning intended to testify on the sidewalk issue and was in belief that the ;13ourd was going to handle the two issue se oar►itelyl therefore, he did not testify, Chairman Poster explained that he had asked the audience for anyone who wanted to speak neither in favor or opposed to please come forward, Mr, Greaavett noted there was a problem in reopening the healing, in that the applicant had already left and would be entitled to rebuttal. Mr, Running stated that there were two appeals to reopen the hearing; one from the applicant regarding the road issue and the other from him self regarding the sidewalk issue, It was his understanding that each srtas being handled separately. Ms, Phillips discussed the procedure of reopening the hearing,explaining that because the bearing had been closed and the applicant had left, it would require renolicing, Ms. Remy moved to "up l Itia c t itiVE.,t . sidlWal .js,antl and Mr. Starr seconded. The motion carried with Mr, Greaves, Mr, Poster, Ms. Remy and Mr, Starr all voting yes. Mr. Bloomer and Mr, Stanawayabstainedw W r W.W:r w rr,r+w wr.W r w r:.W r W�',+nl w W,.W W W r;w!+r w w Mr M.WY rf M+',r M 1W:i,w,rI`w►�►+-0 1 • i?', , !,a, request by OR—AI(Corp, The applicant Is requesting approval for an 80—lot planned development with several modifications to the 11—S zone setback 1)1U3 Minutes 3/5/90 Page 3 of I fi n requirements. The site is located on the south side of Lesser 1toud,'east and west or Fosberg Road (Tax Lot 100 of Tax Map 2 IE 611A). Conttttated from February 21, e.; 1990 ft)discuss open space issues, Chairman Poster asked if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none,he discussed the hearing timelines and procedures, Mr. Poster then asked_ for a staff report. Mr,,Pishvaie briefly discussed the background on the project, t to explained that the applicant had met the 20% open space requirement its directed by the Board. He recommended approval with the condition that the applicant submit a landscape plan showing trees along the perimeter of the open space tracts, Mr, l'islivaie also recommended that condition B(5) should be Modified to include ntltlitional Tracts "13" and "C", A(7)should be modified to include trees in Tracts "13" taut "C A(9) should be modified to have the bylaws for Bay Creek Estates No, 5 submitted for the review and approval of the City Attorney. Mr, Pishvaie stated that the revised plans only showed 74% compliance with the Solar Access Ordinance and that applicant was requesting approval for adjustment; however,there wits no evidence in the record to justify the adjustment, Therefore a condition should be added to require the applicant to work with stuff to identity four additional solar lots, in nceordnncc with the Solar Access Ordinance, Condition A(12) is recommended to be removed, since it is not applicable. ,1 PIkil.tl1 Wit,1t.)s,OR—A1 (x�u'..�. '«Q, u it2,.Litke A eg.t ..97A1334 stated that he was in agreement with the staff report, Mr, I folks requested approval from the Board to isoadjust Provincial Hallway Street(above Tract A and west of l..at t) east, its much as 70', in order to allow flexibility to connect to the property to the south, This would move Lot 1 down to the west and place the street wher Lot I would have been, PrOpOttenis ' ittilti,Mel` 1ttl � foetata Q w gQ stated that she was in favor of the project. She was concerned about safety and usability of the pathways for the children, Ms. McNallty suggested apathway between Lots 31 and 32 and between:37 and 38 to allow access to Tract C l?ilil eruihu The Board round that Tract "C" was a private open space and should not have more access points because of security, 'lihe I3oard found that providing flexibility of Lot 1 and the street would still meet the criteria, Ms. Reiny moved for approval of RI?2049 with the conditions reconttaaended by staff and the flexibility of Lot I and Provincial Ililiway, Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr, Crenves, Mr, roster, Ms. Remy,Mr, Starr turd Mr.Bloomer all voting yes. ...—.......—a-T•.,...1... ....,M,-.,......,Y-.ua.....r...,....,..ww.A.:—w..L—....,........--••..-.,.e. 1&4144 a request by 1.hmtuna—t(las Associates for approval to add a 750 sq. ft. addition to the southeast corner of an existing grocery store. The addition is 6 proposed to be constructed under the yexisting overbill and it's purpose is:to provide the store with a pharn ney, The site is located at 401 "A" Avenue, otherwise described as Tax Lot 7900 of Tax Mon2 I1 31C, 1J 13 Mmutes 3/5l90 Page 4 of 16 ''' Mr,Galante explained to the Board rd that the hearing had been left open to receive addition written testimony regarding the landscaping plan, He stated that no new testimony was received and suggested that the l3oard make a motion to close the hearing, Mr. Starr moved to close the record on DR 28-89 and Ms. Remy seconded, The motion passed with Mr. Strtnaway, Mr,Foster, Ms, Remy, Mr, Starr and Mr, Bloomer all voting yes. Mr, Greaves abstained. BAR 1,--10(i ),a request by John Kyle, Architect for Approval of. _a) A Class 1l. variance to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard which requires that land over SQ % slope shall be developed only where density transfer is not feasible tl)S 16 020(7)1, I)) A Class II variance to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard to exceed the maximum 70% area free of,stt'uctnres and impervious surfaces; and c:)Two I(l' and 5' Class II variances to the required 10' and 5' side yard sethacks of the lR-'t$ and R-7.5 zones,respectively, The applicant proposes to construct a;tingle family dwelling On and in excess of 50% slope with an attached two—car garage on the abutting parcels. The applicant suggests that density transfer is not feasible, The site is located at 107 Burnham Road,east of Ileadlee Lane (Tax Lots 100 and 201 of Tax Man 2 1la iICC),; Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner, discussed the additional exhibits received (Exhibits response 23 lie the recommendation al n 1 hibits 17 through 22 were submitted by the applicant in made in the staff report. Exhibit 23 was a letter from a nearby neighbor, Mr. Wlteeker tliscussed the proposal and stated that the applicant had now addressed all of the criteria, ,Staff would now recommend approval for all thr'cc variances requested, The Board questioned Mr. Wheeler about the property line adjustment, Mr. Wheeler stated that the lot line adjustment was being handled administratively, Exhibit 12 reflects the proposal, as it is intended to be approved by staff, Mr, Wheeler stated that if the Board was to approve the variance.requests they may wish to place a condition that the approval be contingent upon the tot line adjustment, The Board questioned Mr. Wheeler about drainage, Mr. Wheeler stated that there was no formal drainage system in the area►. Roof and foundation drains will be.required to be connected to engineered drywells, Ms.Remy noted that the soils report specifically noted that drywells were not appropriate for the site, according to page 10, item 3 ol'the soils report, Mr. Wheeler suggested that an ndtiitional condition be made for storm drainage to comply with the recommendations tions of the soils report The Board questioned staff about a possible metal roof. Mr. Wheeler stated that it had not been discussed because the exterior design of a single family dwelling was beyond the review of the Board, Applarlit '. 1 .1.1M4 04%,Waft..tit t70$, tti'ffatndd,22O4 discussed the site character and the proposal, fie stated that he was in support of the start.recommendations, op The Board asked Mr, Kyle about the mend roof and the drainage. Mr. Kyle stated that there could be an engineered solution to the drainage problem and that he was willing to la bi b DRII Minutes 3/5/90 Page 5 of 16 work with the City, The applicant would be more than happy to work with the neighbors A regarding concerns about the metal roof. BattUni Chairman foster noted that there was no one in the tnidience who wished to testify for or against the proposal, However,there had been written testimony which should be addressed by the apt ileum. Mr, Kyle stated that he had read the letter as being hi support of the variance requests; however, the;l reekels were requesting that the footprints be altered to preserve the view corridor, Mr.Kyle explained that this site was chosen to preserve the views us much as possible for the adjacent property owners, The 13reekels are not adjacent property owners. The site is hemmed in because of access to the site and setbacks from the Greenway; however he stated that he would be wiliin‘t to do what he could, l libM,ti011 The Board was concerned about drainage mid found that a solution could be reached by an engineer before building permits were issued, The Uotnrd found the variances to be the minimum necessary and the least injurious to the neighborhood, Mr,Stanaway moved for approval of: is 6` .ttt4 tontingent upon approval ttf thealali t +adjustment just com (SD engineer.) with the condition added that the drainage 1 ,• byMr.Starr seconded and the motion carried with Mr, $tanaway, Mr.Greaves, Mr,roster, Ms, Remy, Mr, Sttu'r and Mr, Bloomer all voting yes. ' !/11. $2I Uz a request by The ltolitnan Company for approval to develop a 41 lot single family residential planned development and a Class II variance to allow construction or a sanitary sewer line through the wetlands. The site is locatedL!south of Carman Drive,west of Waluga and north of()akridge Road(Tax Lots 2200, 2300,2400 orTaax Map 2 IE 7AC and Tax Lots 11.00, 1301,2200)2300 orrax Man 2 l'11 73). Chairman Foster asked if there were any ex parte contacts or count diets of interest. Hearing none,he stated that he had worked with SRI,the biologist on the project; however,he would not be biased because of that, Chairman foster explained the hearing timelines and procedure Mr. Pishvaie distributed Exhibit 31, a letter from Mt, and Mrs, Kleckner,regarding the storm drain runoff,the sewer line construction through the wetlands,an uiternative mute of the sewer line and the fact that the City had filled wetlands, Mr, Pishvuie discussed the letter explaining that a variance had been requested for the construction of the sewer line through the wetlands area. 1°le stated that staff had also analyzed alternative routes for the sewerline and found in each instance that the Tine would be above ground at some point, Mr,Pishvaie explained that the City had not filled the wetlands but that they had purchased them and a portion was already Idled, Mr. Pishvaie discussed the proposal,giving an overview of the character of the site, lie stated that the significant factor on the site was the wooded wetly►nds,which measure about 72 acres in size. The wetlands and associated tree grove are proposed to be DRII Minutes 3/5h90 Page fi of 16 ..,. ux..x..@rz,rte4WFr.E t9tti.',t� i eWiFG donated to the Wetland Conservancy Commission by the applicant, as open spncc. Mr, . .,. Pishvaie stated that the City is recommending that the area be dedicated to the City as "." public open space, Ha stated that the property was currently located outside the City, The site has been t pheduled before the Boundary Commission to consider annexation to the City of Lake Oswego, Upon approval of the annexation, the city will initiate a zone change on the property to change the zoning designation from Ciackatnas County R..ft5 to the City R-l5 designation, Mr,Pishvaie noted that there was it discrepancy throughout the report regarding the size of the wetland and the size of Tract "A", Fle stated that the wetltted was about7,2 acres and the open space tracts "A" and ''13"" would account for about 7,59 acres. The property is identified as a distinctive natural area by the Comprehensive Plan (DNA 1,24), T to entire wetland will be preserved as open space, with the exception of the sewer line. Mr. Pishvaie discussed the proposed density, explaining that there would be clustering In the development in order to preserve the open space features, lie stated that the applicant had requested modifications to the lot width and lot depth requirements, which are 80' and 100' respectively in the Ct- 15 zone,to a minimtttu of 55' for lot width and 69' for lot depth, Mr, Pishvaie stated that staff did not support the proposed setbacks 20'rear yard setback and 5' side yard setbacks on Lots 7—i 1 of Block I and Lots I16 of Block because those lots abut the wetland boundary, Staff feels that the setback along the wetland should be a minimum of 25' to p►navtcle a buffer urea between the residential development and the wetlands, The buffer would prevent,human intrusion into the wetland area and Provide a wildlife habitat in the wetlands, Mr. Pishvaie stated that the applicant was proposing an island entrance into the project off of Carman Drive, There is no explanation as to who will be responsible for the maintenance of that island, The planned development requirement requires that either the home owner's association or similar organization provide those services, The applicant should provide the City with the tfnal byiaws stating which entity would be responsible for the island and simil tr open spaces. Mr, Pishvaie explained that a variance request was necessary for the sewer line, lie stated that the applicant had addressed the variance criteria in his narrative, The applicant looked at a second alternative for the sewer linet,however, this would cause the line to be above ground at some points, Staff also looked at other alternatives for the proposed sewer line and reached the same conclusions, Staff agrees that with adequate care and to good restoration plan the sewer line could be construetrl through the wetlands without signhficant impact. Mr. Pishvaic discussed drainage for the project stating that staff would require the applicant to identify the 100 year flood plain. The project is not in the flood plain; however the applicant's engineer bus identified some flood prone areas and areas adjacent to the site which are within the flood plain, Therefore, staff feels that the flood plain standards regarding housing construction and grading should be addressed. Those standards can be addressed at the final construction plan stage. Mr. Pishvate explained the existing street conditions for Oakridge and discussed the street improvements that would be required upon approval. Mr, Pishvttie noted that the street improvements would reduce the fire department response time for the area, Ile referred to the design of Royal Oaks Drive and stated how it complied with the Future Streets plan in the Comprehensive Plan, Mr.Ptslavttie concluder that the project was in compliance with all applicable Plan policies and land use regulations, Staff recommends approval with thirty—three conditions. Mr. Pishvaie noted a correction on page 27 which referred to 1Z-»5 zone, i le stated that it should ret ti R yak 3 Iminutes 3/5/90 Page 7of1G The Board questioned staff about the lot depth and width. Mr. Plshvaie stated that some of the lots in Block 2,sue!)as Lots 13 and 14,could become a problem, lie stated that there may not be enough lot depth because of the recommended 25' setback for the weti.ttnd. The Board asked for feedback from the DSL,Army Corps of 1wng�I►teers or the U,S.17ish and Wildlife, Mr. Pishvaie stated that them was no report ttvailaltle as of yet. He noted. that the t SL would delineate the boundary of the wetland and would be actively involved, Mr. Pishvaie stated that the City had been in contact with the U.S. rich and Wildlife and they requested a 25' buffer. AI1p1k nul} Jen' Yeeti e1',Prg.icteilt,The;UUollh1011 QQMPAUy47t1 . yberg Stycei Itudat thin O.r."Zdetailed the application process he had been tht«ttlih with the City and the various other agencies. Mr. Veenker discussed the type of project it would be and the potential buyers, Mr, Veenker presented an aerial photo to the Board to familiarize them with the Site. Mr. Veenker stated that he was in concert with the staff report with the following modification: Page 7, paragraph 2 notes that Exhibits 1.3 and 14(should be 15 and 16), He noted that the balance Of the DSL survey had been completed and was forthcoming to the City, Ile stated that there; was one small portion on thenortheast end of the site that was already being dedicated as part of the open space, 11 Page 1C,paragraph 4 regarding permits from DS1 and Army Corps of Engineers, He . 4 stated that application had been'made, The Anny Corps of Engineers had already given approval. The DSI permit was in process, Page 17, paragraph 6 regarding the wetlands, Mr. Veenker stated that he proposed to give the wetlands to the Wetland Conservancy Commission because their only interest was in preserving the wetland in its natural state. The City may sometime in the future gordinance developThis change and the,we.thatl,�, l hi,would also allow a tax.write offs Pagear , , ♦1 1 b• . the �.(l, paragraph 5, item 1 of the recommendations, Mr, Veenker stated that l00 year flood elevation had been calculated. The proposed plan was designed with that in mind, Mr,Veenker agreed with staff regarding 100 year flood elevation, lie stated that the 10(1 year elevation would be monumented on the site and used to set the grade elevations, Page 23, paragraph 3,he stated that he agreed with the staff recommendations for Oakridge; however, he agreed with the neighborhood's position regarding termination of Bonaire at Yorkshire. Page 24, paragraph 5,regarding the Erosion Control Standard, Mr. Veenker stated that he was told if the application was submitted prior to the end of the year, then he would. Dot be required to meet these requirements, Page 25, paragraph 3,regarding improvements on lnverurie. Mr, Veenker proposed that no nmprovetnents be done to Inverurte. Page 27, paragraph 1 contained a typographical error relating to 12-5 zone instated of i2 15 zone. Also,Section f32a should read B3a of the staff report, ORB Minutes 3/5/90 Page 8 of 1.6 " s ' Page 27, paragraph 2 the last sentence should read � ,., and Lot 12 of Block 2 to be F } � and add . ; where adjacent to the wetlands, Page 27, item 5 should read ", , , 5' of additional right—of—way for the total of 10' , "as per page 22, paragraph 3 On page 27, item 6, he requested a modification to read ", r open space Tract "A" shall remain in their natural condition for the purpose of providing as scenic, aesthetic appearance protecting natural processes and maintaining natural vegetation,"` Open space Tract "B" shall preserve the trees that exist and provide for location of the project entry sign, Mr, 'Veenker noted that Tract 15 was not part of the wetlands, it was tht island in the center of the entry to preserve large existing trees, k1c recommended that the conditions for Tract "Et" not be lumped together with Tract "A" description, Page 29, item 6 the words ", , , and lnverurie Road along Tract A . , " should be removed because he was proposing no improvements on Inverurie in lieu of improvements on Oakridge, Page 30, item 14 reflects an error in identifying the intersection of Yorkshire and Inverurie and should read ", , , the intersection of Yorkshire Court and Bonaire , ,", Mr. Veenker noted that he was in agreement with Page 30, item 18 regarding the design which would minimize any potential impact on the trees of Block 2. Chairman Foster asked for proponents. Hearing none, he asked for opponents, npOttertl, Ilitl,f?'-litut 'tn � ttytt '1" t� sf»t ! 15 thanked the applicant for being considerate of the wetlands. However, she was concerned about the controversy at the federal level over wetlands. Ms. Meadors noted the impact on the wetlands from development, She was concerned about homeowner intrusion on the wetlands, Ms, Meadors felt that the conservation easement would be difficult to enforce due to the shortage of City staff, 'Ms, Meadors suggested that the deed reflect the conservation wetlands, eaement warning homeowners that they should not intrude upon the asked for conditions to be pieced on the construction of the sewer lino through the wetland, Ms. Meadors stated that the school superintendent agreed that for the school year 1991-1992 there would not be adea�laatate capacity, The Board questioned Ms, Meadors about the closure of the Lake Grove filementary school. Msr Meadors stated that the superintendent had indicated that the would be closing the school for remodeling and would be announcing this information at the meeting the school district was holding concurrently, Chairman Foster explained to Ms. Meadors that the Development review Board could not institute a building moratorium, The City Council was the hearing body with the authority to impose such an act. Dan Coot tl L&Qxu a iDAY34 Lukt4)sitvgo„9„7.1X speaking an behalf of the Royal Oaks Village I lomeowner's Association, Mr, Cochran submitted Exhibit 37, a petition from the neighborhood, '1 he neighborhood asked the Development Review Board to end Royal Oaks Drive at the existing barricade because they are concerned about the surety of the children,increased traffic, tower property values. destruction ol` neighborhood involvement, higher crime rate, increase of noise pollution,drainage problems and the lack of school capacity. Mr. Cochran stated that the neighborhood was concerned that the development would result in cpokiuRt.e iit er ty s ,� us ng. Page 9 of I C #,' i,,: $ich cs .ndgssm, $94U Whit ()31.1i.sittivesialit.aswego.9703 stated that the was opposed to the character of the develops eat, He felt that this development()would result in cookie-cutter track houses. lie felt that the development would be Inconsistent with the e•xisting Royal Oaks subdivision, He urged the Board to stop bake Oswego from turning into another Beaverton, RolLitettr4 1$941 SW Itt ertrrie load lake:Qgo,97Q3a stated that the first notification of the project was chain saws and bulldozers in the wetlands, He stated that he was not on the moiling list. He stated that signs posting notice were also inadequate, Mr. X3aur was concerned about the drainage for storm water in thewetlands, lie wits concerned that the wetlands needed to be delineated before the bulldozers went to work. Mr, Baur stated that the wetlands needed to be marked and inventoried in the Comprehensive Plan, Mr, Baur stated that road improvements needed to match existing road tmprovements on Oakridges Mr,Baur suggested that the money for road improvements on Inverurie be placed In an escrow account until the road is improved. Mr. Baur asked for a time limit on sewer construction, so that it would ,ill happen in a timely manner with little impact on the wetland The Board questioned Mr. Baur about the bulldozers in the wetland, Mr Baur stated that during the saintlier one of the property owners clean-cut part of the property and bulldozed it,piled up debris and filled the wetland area, Currently there is a foot or two of water standing because the drainage pattern has been altered. The county stated that there were no permits issued, The County issued as stop work order and then they marked the wetlands. Later the DSL resurveyed the wetlands boundary. i ,� r 1 Y l rhe , „ ti' ', 1sr! u�� $, $ ."� t� tie s r~ti OSNtegt4,97,0 5 stated that was in agreement `,� with Mr. Cochran abeam traffic concerns, l le suggested that speed bumps be placed on Oakridge and Pirwood to slow down traffic. Mr. Pollard was in favor of cash deposits for the off site improvements. lie was concerned about discharge into the wetlands. 1eigh..0.0414010., AY StYjit`llteli OMP.Q.9Z(iih referred the Board to the aerial photo, lle explained the traffic pattern for the area. Mr,Dodson stated that if lnverurie was complete it would become the major thoroughfare to Booms Berry, Ile agreed that it should remain dead ended and never be allowed to go through, a t 'tl.ie tit . 5,14rw000 nwr` oil t' t? 97015 discussed the traffic patterns for the area. Mr. Patera was pleased that lnverurie would not be connected to Oakridge. He was concerned about the sewer construction through the wetlands. Ile felt that the wetlands would not be mitigated 100%. Mr. Patera stated that the entire area should be looked at comprehensively before the sewers went in, SttsstuL. ,ttlriroly,a e.uo..S: ,.13pt1t ttl c Qsl'rega ? ,0,1 stated that she lived at the corner of Firwood and Bonaire. She was concerned about the increase in traffic,access to the development, additional right-of-way de:dieution and the safety of the children. Ms.Dubnow stated that she would not be opposed to the project if speed bumps were placed on Plywood and Bonaire. She was also concerred about the lack of school rapacity, teiahlIn elfsig $NS`W etthi�easo .O ' ws,911).K reiterated the traffic problems in the area. ile stated that Pirwo d was a feeder road and in poor condition. New development would have a tremendous impact on the neighborhood tad lower the 0 standard of living dramatically. Dttl3 Minutes 3l5/9tl Page 10 of 16 y,1 ,,; 3.5 SW akridge,,4ttl .,Os.,wego,9m3 was concerned about the school ;'t .; capacity problem, Mr, Mast stated that he had a problem with the sewer going through the wetlands, He stated that his home wets on a septic tttni� and there should be a plan for the whole area, Mr. Mast was in support of not conrpletmg inverurie Road, Fie rased questions about the watertable in the wetlands, Mr. Mast was In support of improvements to Oakridge to surrounding standards and not just the minimum standards, Ykki-GAIb I y}_499O SW(7►tiler ,ttge, ..ake.O.SAYsi;u, 7135 stetted that she bought her home because of the potholes. She felt that the potholes provIded a nice safe area for chi improvements She was not in favor of road to Oakridge, Ms. Galloway was in agreement with everybody opposing the development, Constance AGb1l, 9133D2111ttslf :e,,Lak Uss'l;sl,. was a 21; year residetlt, She was in favor of some improvements to Oakridge and concerned about traffic, Ms. Abbott felt that the project was not in keeping with the neighborhood, She was concealed about the trees in the Lake Grove which were diminishing because of development. JoluilitegoLYA4625,1,gbitc„naliaThitedatlitOilYggo,M,15,stated that the neighborhood was a unique environment in that the children could play safely, the neighbors were all familiar with each other and there was one access in and out, IIc was concerned about the increased traffic flow-, the impact to the wetlands, the cookie-cutter appearance and property values, l t an ►' .oak►, `► 1Y Oaltrltlt;a. adJitt1lt t ego ! 7Q35 reiterated the fact that three months ago the lot had been cleared and bulldozed. I le was concerned about the drainage runoff caused by the road improvements to Oakridge Road because his lot 411) was below the road, Mr,Sttneterson felt that improving Oakridge along would increase traffic in the area, NvilliVr-O PWILVUt'Alffit ,lt►u ;'thee, ` '' it faQg , tagI ike.ga egt&920,35 was in favor of having Ottkridge improved and speed bumps,. She was concerned about drainage and traffic, She suggested that the corner of Oakridge and Waluga be made into a four-way stop, Nis.Pearce was in favor of having the Wetlands Conservancy in charge of the wetlands instead of the City. ,lit losit elhl (h Y .Qttlifidg `td t1 L ci;o,17a1 5 stetted that his property abutted the site, lie stated that the project had been going on since last July, Ile was concerned about drainage onto his property, Mr. Blodgett was in favor of the project only because the lot had already been cleared and destroyed, Ile was opposed to having lnverurie opened to Bonaire, Ile was in favor of a four-way stop at the intersection of Waluga and Oakridge. l �c:� '�?i tttt. gry en, lilyc, .tt p,,.,,,l.4ttke Oswegg was in fervor of the Wetland Conservancy, lie was not in favor or the raids being constructed at this time, Mr. Wigmen was in favor of having the monies places in a trust or escrow account for future road construction. Rebttltit lerry_Yvenliex stated that none of the property lines would intrude into the wetlands, 11e 110 stated that extensive calculations were done tor the water table and fill would be placed on the lots that had a high water table, 'lie said that there would be' no.need for stoup DIU3 Minutes 3/5/90 Page 11 of 16 t „y�r,N pumps in crawl spaces because the lots would flow by natural gravity flow, Mr. Veenker stated that he would not have a problem noting the wetland restrictions on the deeds as c well us the pint. Mr, Veenker discussed the need for sewer lines hi this area,explaining.that the ground out there was saturated and no new septic tank permits would be issued in the future, Ile described the materials that would be used to construct the sewer line through the wetlands,stating that the line was not likely to leak or rust through. Mr, Veenker explained to the Royal Oaks neighborhood that the street improvements as noted proposal . r ' City's Future Streets Plan, recommendedHe in his wtM► , in conformance with the t to be developed and that e parcel ttcil�hbt.lcrltt�cciuc�uic���r�>tt 5t proposed site and the neighborhood yet protest` t ttrther street development ett that dine. Mr, Vicenker noted that the streets were meandered deliberately so that thesite would not look like a cookie-cutter subdivision. The board asked Mr, Veenker to address the wetland issue regarding debris, Mr. Veenker explained that the lot was cleared and the debris was piled prior to Mr. Veenker purchasing the property. Mr, Veenker would be removing the debris, exhibit 16,a letter from Ken Franklin of DSL, that delineates exactly what cleanup has to be done to the wetlands, The Board questioned Mr,Veenker regarding the road improvement standards on Oakridge, Mr, Veenker stated that he did not propose to connect Inverurie and he would be making improvements to Oakridge. Mr, Veettker stated that tts far as the design it would be left up to the engineers who would most likely design drainage at the perimeter ,, of the street as can be found in many rural areas; therefore, drainage would not runoff {i. down into the lots. The Board asked about the sin of sewer line running,through the wetland. Mr. Veenker's engineer stated that it would be 8",, The Board was concerned about future maintenance of that line, Stttft"stated that to reduce the potential for having to repair the line, manholes would be required U) be located upland, The likelihood of having to repair that sewer line would be very remote. The type of line being required was considered to be very durable and reliable, The Board questioned staff about alternatives to putting the sewer through the wetland. Staff explained that the line would ultimately coats out of the ground by about five to six feet at manhole 11, The Board asked the applicant to address lt,xhlbit 3i, tt letter from Mr. and Mrs. Kieckner which was of the opinion that no variance was necessary. Mr. Veenker stated that geavity feed was impossible because to go around would cause the sewer line to be above ground in some places, A pump station would be required to move the sewage waste, Usually, the City prefers gravity flow when it is possible instead c.:pump stations, Z. r himi ►A a oXttl; eori tg ITSO„altfitixiint1<in9 ilu hind representing the Whiten company, stated that several alternatives were reviewed to support the variance request, He stated that they found that gravity flow was impossible without crossing the wetlands. Mr,Galante further explained that it was the City's polley to provide gravity flow sewer 410 systems where ever possible. Pumping is discouraged because the systems fall and require electricity to run the pump. Also, when the City goes to the Boundary Commission to prove which areas should be within the City we generally have to prove Dltll Minutes 3/M .lil ' Page 12 of I ti that we can provide service by gravity flow sewer, This eliminates the argument over which jurisdiction should serve the area, r, The Board asked the applicant's environmental consultant to come forward and talk about the reinstatement of the wetland, They were concerned about the length of time it would take to reinstate, what it would look like when it was completed and has this been dome before, WMY kigeri«Af«AMiAIa■euiatagittsos:itte..At 1I8XSA Rai.MIn Nrk„7.kny WLe t375.1.4tke 3� ()swot:04,91DM stated that they consulted Northwest Natural Cats on several occasions on installing gas lines through a variety of wetlands, There is at standard technique that con be used and works effective) where the top soil is removed with vegetation, the pipe is cast and the top soil:with vegetation is replaced the, same day, It is also possible to reseed the top soil and within two years it would be covered with.grass, A major permit from m a the Army Corp, is not required because the impact would be minimal, This whole process should take place in a one week period and would most likely be done in late summer when there was the least amount of water in the wetland, Mr, Cleiger also pointed out the if the alternative route was taken for the sewer line this wouldresult in crossing the wetland tm the other side of lnverurie Road. The Board questiaved staff about who should have jurisdiction over the wetlands. The City of Lake Oswego or the Wetland Conse'rvanc' Commission'? Stair stated that the City owned an existing pack along the C081 side of y'Nola ga Drive. The City has purchased property , ga `l ' purposes,+ 't sproperty, i tlac west of�Wttlaa to Drive for park Tills which lie4 immediatel east of: the subject site would make tot'a natural extension of the publicly y ,, . f . active owned lund4 The,130nrd was, cont„,:e,tl that the. wetlands would betttrrtt�tl into an park, Mr, Pishvale explained that if it was developed It would be developed as to passive recreational area. The l3outd noted that the Wetland C"onservane � Commission had expressed an interest in the wetlands, however; it had not decider whether or not they would be willing to accept responsibility of them. The Board questioned staff about the street connections, Mr, Pishvaie explained that right-olway had already been dedicated; however, the area was currently in the County, Staff felt that as an alternative the applicant could provide a traffic study that would evaluate the right-of-way needsy and Mature street needs throughout the neighborhood, Mr. Veenket°explaine t th�'t.;tafl had given the option of improving Oakridge in lieu of improving lnverurie, le had attended several meetings with the neighbors. The neighbors had made it cleat that the did not wish for lnveruric to connect and were In favor or the improvements to Oakridge; therefore, that is what we are proposing to do, Delliict'u Ut11.1 1, Based upon the findings and analysis in the memorandum from the City Council, dated October 17, 1989 (E;xhibit 22), which is adopted anti incorporated herein by reference, the Hoard founds a. That the application complies with )Urbino Service'Boundary,Genet al Policy lil, and Impact Management Policy,General Policy 11, b. That the current school capacity problem can be addressed by the district's short-term plans (e.g., use of modular structures, bussing,and adjustment in district boundaries), The school superintendent testified that while these -;� solutionslstrie,t standardsi (urbanr undesirable, poi�cill rvicaes),an education experience that meets w DR13 Minutes 3/5/ t) Page 13 of,l Ci 1 c. That the school board testified that they have both short-term and long-- term plans for increased enrollment. d. That the school board has testified that they will provide the same instructional programs for all children of comparable grade levels, They are able to do this through the 1991-.1992 school year, The problems of local overcrowding cuan be handled on a district-wide basis, e. That the school district would provide the City with new enrollment information in order to evaluate the school capacity on an ongoing basis to determine if there is an adequate level of urban services. Based upon that determination,the City has the authority to consider enacting a moratorium on new developments and/or approved and platted lots (building permits), if justified by facts existing at that time, The 13onrd wished to make it clear that the applicant is proceeding at his own risk regarding the possibility of a moratorium being enacted at some future date 2, After receiving testimony from the applicant and the public, and after reviewing evidence in the record, the Board found that a, The variance request to construct a sanitary sewer line through portions of the wetland area is adequately, addressed in Exhibit 11, The variance can be supported due to the following reasons: • The proposed sanitary sewer plan is consistent with the City policy which discourages pump stations which tend to fail and cause service problems, • Adequate evidence has been presented is Exhibit 28 and in oral testimony by the applicant's wetland specialist that clearly illustrates that the proposed sewer line could be constructed with minimal disturbance to the wetlands, Evidenceshows that the disturbedareas could be restored rather quickly (Exhibits 7 and 28), 0 The variance is the minimum necessary to assure reasonable use of the property, since it would impact only small portion of the wetlands in Tract "A", Exhibit 7, • The variance would not be injurious to the neighborhood,since the disturbed areas would be restored in short period of time,as illustrated on the mitigation plans,Exhibits 7 and 28. O The alternative sewer line(Exhibit 8) would not provide adequate public services to the adjoining areas to the south, east and west. As with the proposed plan,the proposed alternative would also have to cross the existing wetlandsM DRt3 Minutes 3/5/e. t} Page 14 of tfi b The extension of Royal Oaks Drive is consistent with the future Street plan approved as part of Royal Oaks Village Planned Development, as depicted on Exhibit 27, The Board found that there was an intervening'property that separates the site from loyal Oaks Tillage and that the two streets would not be connected as part of this development, c. The proposed open space (Tract "A") should be dedicated to the City as public o pen space, since it has been demonstrated that it would be part of an overall City park system, d. The improvement plans on Oakridge Road',should address the overall drainage issue withoutadversely impacting the abutting properties, e, Regarding the citizens' concerns with speeding on Walttga and Oakridge, the Board directed staff to prepare a report for the Traffic Control Board explaining the Board's concerns and supporting a tour;way stop sign at intersection of Waluga and Oakridge, f, Regarding street Improvements on loverurie Road, the Board found that more information was needed in order to determine the extent of future improvements on that`road. The applicant wits directed to prepare atraffic II report analyzing the need for extension of Inveruric Road to Carman Drive, The Board asked the applicant to have this information available for the public hearing on April 2, 1990. 3, The zone requirements for )1) 71-89 are the R-15 standards described in LOC 48.205 —48.225, l'he exceptions are modifications to the zone requirements as discussed in Section 13,3.a of the February 23, 1990 staff report, I he 10% lot coverage shall be applied on a lot-by-lot basis; Mr, ( reaves moved for the continuance of PI)21-89LYA.I40 to consider only the issue of the truffle cstndy as it affects the street,plans, to the April 2, 1990 Development Review Board meeting. Mr. Starr seconded and the motion passed', with Mr. Stanaway, Mr, (heaves, Mr. Poster, Ms. Remy, Mr, Starr and Mr, Bloomer all voting yes. D11140, a request by Glenn 1;. Chilcote, A.I.A. The applicant is requesting approval to provide additional temporar;r dfice space for 12 months using a mobile commercial building 12' x 42', The site is located at 4255 Oakridge Road, 3 lots east of Quarry Road (Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map 2 ;1 E 8d13). Mr.Foster moved for ctantittutmcc of ,- d for the March 19• 99( meeting . Ms. Remy seconded and the motion passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr.Greaves, Mr, roster, Ms, Remy, Mr, Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. 111 DlU) Minutes 3/5/90 Page 15 of dt', VII. OTHER BUJSINESS —Findings,Conclusions and Order Mr, Foster requested that the Findings, Conclusions and Order for DR,23-89,page 2 item #3 be changed to read; ", .4 the Board found that the photinat proposed along the pedestrian path did provide adequate screening, but th.tt it was too dense and too large and was inappropriate for the pedestrian wall , ," Mr. Foster moved for approval of PR 23--9-754, Findings, Conclusions and Order with the changes as amended in item#3. Mr. Starr seconded and the motion passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr. Foster, Ms. Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr, Bloomer all voting yes, Mr, Greaves abstained, Mr. Foster moved for approval of R17-439IYAR 45-89—.756, Findings, Conclusions and ()rdcr. Mr. Starr seconded and the motion passed with Mr, Stanaway, Mr, Foster, Ms, Remy, Mr, Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes, Mr, Greaves abstained Mr. Foster moved for approval of Dtt. 45 , Fi 24:,RuS! , ndings, Conclusions and Order, Mr Starr seconded and the motion passed with Mr, Stanaway, Mr, Foster, Ms. Remy, Mr, Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. Mr, Greaves abstained. • Ms. Remy moved for approval of DR.213r5 . ,Findings, Conclusions and Order, Mr.Stanaway seconded and the motion passed with Mr. Stanaway,Mr, Foster, Ms, Remy, Mr, Starr and Mr, Bloomer all voting yes, Mrs.Greaves abstained, VI I. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Development Review Board,the meeting adjourned at I;O(l Respectfully Submitted, .550„botAti,... Barbara Anderson Secretary II • DR13 Minutes 3/5/9() Page 16 o1` 16 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES February 21, 1990 t 0 V D L CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of February 21, 1990 was called to order by Chairman Foster at 7;30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr, Bloomer, Ms. Sybrowsky, Mr. Foster, Ms, Remy, Mr.Starr and Mr. Stanaway. Mr, Grenves was excused. Also present were Robert Galante, Acting Planning Director; Flamid Pishvaie, Development Review Planner; Lynn Bailey, Associate Planner; Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney; and Barbara Anderson, Senior Secretary, III. APPROVAL OF MINtrms Mr. Starr moved for approval of the Oc,tobex.2.Ji$9 Waldo, Ms. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Sybrowsky,Mr, roster,Ms. Remy and Mr. Starr all voting yes. Mr. Stanaway and Mr. Bloomer both abstained, Mr. Starr moved for approval of the November 15, 1989.Minit.twes. Ms. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with 'Ms. Sybrowsky, Mr, roster, Ms. Remy and Mr. Starr all voting yes,, Mr.Stanaway and Mr. Bloomer both abstained. 1V. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC 1lEARINCx { 11? 18-89,,a request by Ilumesite Development Corp. for approval of a 32 lot single family residential planned development. The site is located north and south of Iron Mountain Blvd., and west of Summit Drive, otherwise known as (Tax Lots 20.1. and 600 of Tax Map 2 1I 9 and Index). The hearing will be reopened to consider access to Lots 3-6 of Block 2 and sidewalks on Ridgewood Road. Chairman roster announced that without Mr. Greaves present there was not an adequate quorum to hear this agenda item. Ms. Remy moved for coutinu m e'. D 18.139 to Mn.r'1L$, 1991. Ms, Sybrowsky seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Stanaway,Ms, Sybrowsky,Mr,Foster, Ms. Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr, Bloomer all voting yes. 0-89, a request by OR-AK Corp. The applicant is requesting approval for an 80- lot planned development with several modifications to the It-5 tune setback requirements. The site is located on the south of Lesser Road,east and west of Fosberg Road (Tax Lot 100 of Tax Map 2 1E 68A). Continued from February 1990. Dlt13 2/21/90 Minutes Page 1 of 8 Chairman Foster asked the Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of 0 interest, Hearing none, he asked for the staff presentation, Mr. Pishvaie entered Exhibits 29 and 30, letters from Mr, Ovido Zakicwics into the record. He discussed the issues raised in both letters. He explained that the last paragraph of Exhibit 29 was perhaps testimony that should be excluded from the record. The Board agreed that the record was only left open to discuss the school, layout, and open space issues. Mr Stanaway moved to exclude the lns.t paragraph of Exhibit 29 from the record. Mi. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Stanaway,Ms, Sybrowsky,Mr. Foster, Ms, Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr,Bloomer all voting yes, Mr.Pishvaie discussed the layout and open space issues, He stated that the applicant had increased the open space area;however, it still did not meet the minimum 20%requirement, Mr.Fishvaie explained that Mr. Korach from the Lake Oswego School District had sent a letter regarding the closure of Lake Grove Elementary School. He noted that the letter stated a study on a temporary closure was being evaluated at this time and there has been no final decision, Mr. Pishvaie went on to say that Mr. Korach continues to state that the school district can handle the problems of overcrowding for the school year 1991-1992 school year with temporary solutions. Ciorslottilobitw 013:.Amu _', m 392 : arise . i g 9_703$discussed the modified layout and open space. He indicated that Tract "13" was added to increase open space area to 0,96 acres, Lots 6 through 19 would have 25 ft,rear yard setbacks, .nett KAulty,4100 c ttsfoo afl LQsWW !7035 expressed concerned that the applicant was proposing to qualify individual yard space as open space. She stated that it was a financial advantage for Olt—AK to press for a minimal amount of open space in the development, Ms. McNulty stressed that it was the City's decision as to what amount of open space(under the 20% requirement) should be provided for a development, She noted that payment in lieu of should be the exception rather than the rule, Exira alli►.tt Cador ,, fir Cs tr�tt '. �,ni rate, ...sl;%. 7035.discussed the Open Space Standard and the park acquisition fund. She expressed concern about the amount of monies in the fund and stated that this amount was insufficient to purchase large desirable parcels for future parks, Ms.M i eadors ndicated that the passage of a bond was necessary rather than the park acquisition fund, She stated that special attention should be given to the livability of high density areas, Ms.Meadors voiced concern about the equability of the buy out to the city, She pointed out that developers were able to provide monies in the form of a buy out that are actually less than the fair ma..ket value of the land, Ms,Meadors disputed Mr, Korach s response to the school issue. She stated that he was using an inaccurate premise for figuring the enrollment capacity, ks1r li1,n , l, G,1 ,Lettgtw lbinen�.Voters of West amps Couut 13.35. 11iIt,.oath, ilkLQsW.ego,97035,submitted Exhibit 33, a letter from the league. She stated that the league was concerned about the trend in Lake Oswego to allow developers to buyout of the open space requirement, She spoke to the fact that the new proposed Melrose 110 park would provide structured playing areas, but would not provide relief from the high density of the development. She urged the Board to require the applicant to provide the full amount of open space mandated by the Comprehensive Plan. Dro3 2/21/90 Minutes Page 2 of 8 Samtnie..5 ' ,(4,/,(13.5 stated that for the sake of time, she would support the testimony from the League of Women Voters, Rebuttal Conlon Hobbs stated that he was relying on the school district's letter which stated that they could accommodate the projected growth in enrollment, Mr.Hobbs stated that one reason the parks acquisition fund was low could be because there has not been any development in Lake Oswego for the last year. He indicated that he would be paying.approximately$98►000.00 if approved as requested. Mr. Hobbs remarked that assessments were catching up and were always going to be a little bit behind. Mr. Hobbs discussed the Open Space Standard. He stated that there was a priority list of desired open space and that a meadow was not on that list. He indicated that the "meadow" its self was not even a good definition of meadow. Mr. Hobbs requested that the Board approve the application as modified Dstlikeration The Board was sympathetic to testimony that the superintendent was saying the same old thing, however, they agreed that Mr. Korach had the facts and was on top of the crowding issue, The Board pointed out that they were directed by Council to follow the guidance of the superintendent. The Board found that although the applicant had modified the layout and added open space Tract "I3", the open space area continued to be inadequate. The Board found that a full 20% . of open space should be provided. lyR; The agreedthe the rsetbacks: side � 1"he Board that proposal should maintain following side yard 5 ft., front yard 15 ft.; back yards 15 ft,,except Lots 6 through 19, which would be 25 ft. rear yard setbacks. Ms.Remy moved for cu .tintlndice of f .i 49 to March $, 1990 in order to allow the applicant to redesign the open space to 20%. Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway, Ms. Sybrowsky, Mr. Foster, Ms,Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. fR 23-89, a request by Northland Homes, 1nc,, for approval to construct a 4-plea. The 9-15Erasmus is located att which is the northwest corner of Erasmus,west of Cervantes (`fax Lot 14 of Tax Map 2 lE 310). Chairman Foster asked the Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he asked for the staff presentation. Ms. Bailey discussed the staff report dated January 5, 1990 and staff memorandum dated February 9, 1990. She stated that staff had concluded that the revised proposal complied with all applicable criteria and could be approved with conditions. b1213 2/21/90 Minutes Page 3 of 8 Apaigunt 0 Douglas PoHoek stated that he was in concurrence with the staff report, He indicated that he had no objections to the proposed conditions, Proppnent4 i ntm.1V1t. Park Architectural Committee Chahmau stated that he had reviewed the two proposals (DR 23 -89 and DR 24-89). He indicated that the committee found the revised proposal to be more in keeping with surrounding sites. mtitoratio. The Board found that the applicant had not provided evidence of compliance with the Building Design Standard which requires design complementary to the surrounding building environment. The Board found that the addition of specific conditions of approval to add gabled roof, vary die facade and eliminate muntins would assure compliance with the Building Design Standard, The Board found that the photinia proposed along the pedestrian path did provide adequate screening, however, it would be too large and intrusive along the pcde.stratut pathway, The Board found that the addition of a condition to substitute Pacific Way Myrtle for photinia along the pedestrian path would assure compliance with the Landscape, Screening and Buffering Standard (OS 9.fX)5—9.04()), , ' Ms. Remy moved fo►r appal ,'-8a. Mr.Starr;seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Stanaway, Ms, Sybrowsky, Mr, Foster, Ms. Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr, Bloomer all voting yes. -r--r...A----w-r.w-------...:-rwwr-►f-----w- .-w--.-wit-w M.1..w+...- 1)1124.42)a request by Northland Homes,Inc., for approval to coostruet a 4—plex. The site is located at 2- Erasmus,which is on the west side of Erasmus,west of Cervantes (Tax Lot IS of Tax Map 2 1E 31D), Chairman Foster asked the Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none,hee asked for the staff presentation,. Ms. Bailey discussed the t taff report dated January 5, 1990 and staff nietatoranduni dated February 9, 1990, She stated that staff had concluded that the revised proposal complied with all applicable criteria and could be approved with Conditions. 4puiiean DauglasXollock stated that he was in concurrence with the staff report, Ile indicated that he had no objections to the proposed conditions. tattctn: The Board found that in order to assure compliance with the Parking Standard (Da 7.005 7.040), the applicant should revise the site plan to provide 24 feet ofpaving adjacent to the garage entry for the northerly unit. In addition, the.northerly parking stall should be a minimum 15 feet in depth. ID1213 2/21/9() Minutes Page 4 or 8 The Board found that to assure compliance with the 15% minimum landscaping requirement 'y' of DS 9.005—9,040, a condition should be added requiring the applicant to verify that 15% landscaping will still be provided after parking lot modifications are provided, The Board found that the photinia proposed along the pedestrian path did provide adequate screening;however, it would be too large and intrusive along the pedestrian pathway. The Board found that the addition of a condition to substitute Pacific Wax Myrtle for photiniat along the pedestrian path would assure compliance with the Landscaping,Screening and Buffering Standard(DDS 9,005—9.040), Ms.Sybrowsky moved for .izi~o aLQtJ R24 2. Mr. Stanaway seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Stanaway, Ms. Sybrowsky,Mr. Foster, Ms, Reny, Mr. Starr and Mr, Bloomer all voting yes. lUl 27- 39\VAR 4,5 39, a request by firtcher Frank Properties for approval to construct a 94,000, four and 1/2 story office building with a two level parking structure. The parking structure requires a variance to the aisle dimensions of the Parking Standard. The site is located at 7 Centerpointe(Tax Lot 01100 of Tax Map I E 06). Chairman Foster asked the Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Hearing none, he asked for the staff presentation. Mr. Galante explained the proposal. He presented a brief history on the site, discussing the prior ODPS approval, Mr, Galante mentioned that the site provided 28% landscaping and , that.the open space wags laid out in the original 010S. l le noted that there WAS it conifer forest in the center of the Centerpointe site that was the primary open space feature for the entire area. He concluded that the proposal could be approved with conditions. ; p.p kn at Torn 11 ,,, i e CetlittPARIz Lake:Q 1x914.0$97035, discussed the proposal. He indicated that "Seven Centerpointe"incorporated the same criteria and quality as the other buildings. Efick,SpeasAAtchiltcUIDDRALArshiteas mentioned the design guidelines and themes known through out the Centerpointe campus and the Kruse Corridor, Ile discussed the siting, massing and materials proposed. Mr Spears noted that the siting of the building was iarticulaarly important to preserve open space and give the design a feeling of openness, He ndicated that the siting of the building caused the parking to be placed in a structure in the ground, Mr. Spears mentioned that the parking structure was designed to appear ground level, keeping the plaza like feeling. cti Loris Vice pt. slcctk4S tlttSt ctio 4, fix t: {' l p _Cfa1s 1 , La1 g oo„9`i'035 discussed the variance criteria. He indicated that the request was necessary to prevent unnecessaryilaardship because of the physical boundaries of the lot. He noted that the variance was the minimum necessary in order tobalance the project with landscaping and open space. Mr.Lewis stated that the variance was consistent with the proposal and would not be harmful to surrounding neighbors within the campus. Mr.Lewis referred the Board to Exhibit 13, the narking survey, for comparison of like properties, He noted that the survey demonstrated that several other parking structures within the region had DWI 2/21/90 Minutes Page 5 of 8 less aisle twea than was provided by the proposal, Mr.Lewis concluded that the variance .4r1 criteria had been met, 1 fx , . , ;t a. 04 ..0, `. ,i a utti e Ars:hxtect,t73 5 ' .. LAWIsuggoo 9.70$discussed the landscape design. She indicated that she had worked on the landscape plan for Centerpointe from the conception. Wibizrattto The applicant testified that the variance request for the parkingaisle dimension should be granted to avoid a hardship and that the hardship was due to the sire and ;shape of the property and this need to preserve trees in a significant setback area along Kruse Way. The applicant also cited the saving of trees and the ability to safely utilize the parking structure as reasons why no injury would result by the granting of the variance* The applicant demonstrated that the variance request was minimized by restricting the need for the variance to only a portion of the parting structure. In addition, the applicant demonstrated that other properties were used similarly and that the applicant's proposal constituted reasonable use. There were no Plan policies that were applicable to the quest. Ms, Remy moved for pp $9/VAl 4$4 . Mr.Stanaway seconded the motion and it passed with Mr,Stanaway, Ms,Sybrowsky,Mr. Foster, Ms, Remy, Mr. Starr 1 and Mr. l3lotmier+all voting yes, 1 —M#:.�.MM----M .Mi-.....-..k-'1.0 Hn YH_W MI"wICY:vr.-`+..,MO iw....__w M..+�4—`r.M w 4—M_1.+...on,M-1 !w+ it 2,a request by hmann—Ktas Associates for approval to odd a 7S0 sq. ft. .., addition to the southeast corner of an existing grocery store. The addition is proposed to t . be constructed under the existing overhang and it purpose is to provide the store with a pharmacy. The site is located at 401 "A" Avetie,otherwise described as TAX Lot 7900 of Tax Map 2 likl 30C, Chairman Poster asked the Board members if there were any ex parte,contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none,he asked for the staff presentation. Ms, Bailey stated that staff was recommending,denial of the proposal for noneompiiauace with the Landscape Standard and the Design Standard, She indicated that staff was concerned about the loss of the rock and tile mural which complied with the Design Standard, Ms. Bailey noted that the two existing access entries on "A"Avenue were not safe as evidenced by Exhibits 6,7 and h, She coati} uded that unless the applicant presented evidence in compliance for the Board stuff would continue to recommend denial. Ms, Bailey noted it correction to the staff report on page 6,Park and Open Standard and Landscape,Screening and Buffering Standard, She indicated that the staff report reflected that there was 7% landscaping on the site,it should be corrected to %. APPlizta tAittso,111tma► .rt.z.Kins,Arsititetta mentioned that the proposal started out as II minor remodel on the inside of the store; however,it was.determined that there was not enough room within the store to meet the needs of the neighborhood, lie discussed the proposal for the 7$O set,ft. addition to the site, Mr. Islas mentioned a hardship that would be caused by 410 being required to meet the landscape criteria, lie noted that the landscape improvements and the access improvements would cost as much as the addition Itself. He requested that the Board approve the proposal for the addition and make the variance request it condition for approval. ORB 2/21/90 Minutes Page 6 of 8 Mr, Klas presented revised site,plans to the Board. He pointed out to the Board that the two aGx access points on "A" Street were reconfigured to one access point in the center. He noted that 'f, 20 parking spaces were sacrificed to add the additional landscaping, Mr. Kitts discussed the redesign of the entry. He stated that it was not in the budget to move the mural, The Board questioned staff about the revised site plans. Ms. Bailey indicated that the revised site plans appeared adequate and that a revised landscape plan would be necessary to detail the landscaping, Ennio-1.cJCII LLSImPson,First Addi limit` ar„ mi .I irman stated that the neighborhood supported the proposal. She indicated that PAN was concerned about a sense of loss over the II existing unique rock and tile mural. She suggested that the applicant orient the pharmacy counter 90 degrees in order to better view and access the mural on the proposed interior wall. Ms, Simpson mentioned that the neighborhood would like to see another public art piece displayed on the exterior of the store, perhaps commissioned by the local high school, She also requested that the Board require the applicant to enhance the area around the existing poplar tree on Forth Avenue. Aiieltn „ " La gu*J7Q34 stated that Safeway had been an excellent neighbor, He stated that the proposal would not have an impact on the neighborhood and would provide a needed convenience, He urged the Board to approve the request. Rebnlla Nikata stated that several alternatives were explored for the remodel. He indicated that there was no feasible way to move the mural. He noted that there was no way to turn the pharmacy counter 90 degrees because too much floor area would be wasted, Mr. Dorsey stated that the project was beginning to reach a point where it would be impossible to recuperate the expenses. He indicated that Safeway may consider a new public art piece provided it could be put in the budget. Mr.-Dorsey noted that enhancement to the poplar tree was included in the new landscaping plans. nolibgrotion The Board found that the applicant provided adequate evidence(Exhibit 10) to demonstrate that the Landscaping and Access Standards can be met. The Board found that, in order to provide compliance with State law, the record should be left open for 10days to allow written testimony to be received regarding Exhibit 10, The Board found that staff should evaluate and compile findings for the Board based upon the staff report and testimony as well as any tadditi a al evidence submitted during the 10 day waiting period that must remain open, The Board found that the proposed design of the small addition would be complementary to surrounding development since the applicant agreed to modify the 'IA' Avenue access and to provide additional landscaping, The Board found that conditions of approval would be necessary in order to assure >> compliance with the Landscaping and Access Standards, 1 RB 2/21/90 Minutes Page e 7 of.. S M .Starr moved for stuff to prepare written findings for approval of 1/I . 9. Ms. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Startaway,Ms. Sybrowsky,Mr,Poster, \tr Ms.Remy,Mr.Starr and Mr.Bloomer all voting yes. Mr. Foster moved for corstinmumotia,21612.toMarsb.,S421A In order to allow the record to remain open for written testimony to address Exhibit 10 Ms.Sybrowsky seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway, Ms, Sybrowsky, Mr,Foster,Ms, Remy, Mr.Starr and.Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. VI. GENERAL PLANNING VII. OTHER BUSINESS-Findings,Conclusions and Order Ms.Sybrowsky moved for approval or DR 2549,Fititlingfl,Conteltnstons and Order, Ms. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Startaway,Ms, Sybrowsky,Mr.Foster, Ms,Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr.Bloomer all voting yes. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Developtneat Review Board, Chairman Foster adjourned the meeting at 12,1S tt,m. Respectfully Submitted, . i M t '+t ems" 3 Barbara Anderson Senior Secretary N1no)04i,uoco?,l,00; (.wa1. DD1t13 2/21/90 Minutes Page 8 of 8 R _< CITY()C LAKE C)SIVEG() DEVELOPMENT ni VIEVI f3C)ARD MINUTES February 5, 1990 l+Mlj I. CALII TO ORDER The Development Review I3o u'd meeting of l+ebruary S, l99 was called to order by Chairman Poster at 7:35 prat, II. ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr.Bloomer,Ms. Sybrowsl y,Mr. Grooves, Mr,Poster,Ms, Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr. Stanaaway. Also present were,Robert Galasaate, Acting Planning Director,Hamad Pashvaie,Development Review Planner; Lynn i3aliey, Assoeiate Planner; Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney, and Barbara Anderson, Senior See•rettwys I11. .i'ETJT I()NS AND COMMUNICATION, Mr,Pishvnie explained that there was a letter which would be presented as an exhibit during the public hearing on PD 20.89. IV, l'UIILIC IUI ARINC► a request by the City of Lake Oswego Parks Maintenance Division. The nialrlicant is seeking aalaita•oval to remove a poorly constructed storage structure and 'eN:' replace it with an aaci<titiun to the nntin maintenance shop building at the Municipal Golf Course, The she is located at 17525 SW Stafford Road (Tax Lot MI of Tax Map 2 :IV 14,Tax Lot 600 of Taa;X Map 2 LE 1t A,and Tax Lots 100 & 101 of T'tax Map 2 IE 16AC), Chairman Poster asked the Board members if there were any ex parte cantos is or conflicts of interest, !leering none,he asked for the:staff presentation, Lynn Bailey pointed out as correction to the staff wpm On page 3 there was an error retarding the stpuwe footage, he staff report should have read 1,888 sq, ft., the structur, i 32 x 50 feet, Ms. Bailey discussed the applicable regulations and criteria as outlined on pages I and 2 of the stuff report. Ms. Bailey stated that staff recommends approval,subject to two conditions, Ahi>~lkatul AKtmAinyonixatkatintotinge,,ssingriatostot,,CityllaktOmyogo stated that the shed was necessary in order to better organize storage facilities and keep more accurate account of inventory equipment. lie stated that the tractor and other rolling equipmentt was parked outside in the weather all year long. Mr.Kinyon noted that he would like to be able to store this equipment inside for better protection, Mr,I<inyon said that it was ids intention to move an existing shed that the City owns and store it lit the golf course. The building will be nttadified with overhead doors, Chairman Poster asked for testimony in favor or the application. Ilearing none, he asked for I testimony opposed.to the a p alicution, Ileaarlat� none, he asked if there was anytestimony , . l i • neither in favor nor oitl)osed. Hearing none, he closed the hearing for Board deliberation, l)itl3 2f/9t)Minutes Page I or 9 dihert.tim The Board found that the applicant had adequately addressed all the applicable criteria, The Boa .found that a condition to improve the appearance of the north side of the existing fence was neeessary to provide compliance with the Screening and Buffering Standard, Ms, Remy moved for approval of°DR2,.S-89 and Mr. Creaves seconded, The motion passed with Mr. Stanaaway, Ms, Sybrowsky, Mr. Greaaves, Mr.Foster, Ms, Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr, Bloomer all voting yes, ,hy+,f+!4r wr.Mf rr•4,.YrY..fwr+r r*....M Few r.+w''Y,.w�r w:v wM n4+wn r�Y K w++"+wnw„w*+wH M ww iir♦wr,i.p w'.,.atr✓«'a K^'i .Mrs.fs s4:ai Y.bN aW kr 21-7 i4, a request by OR-ME Corp. The applicant requesting approval for an 80-- lot planned development with several modifications to the R--5 zone setback requirements, The site is located on the south side ofLesser Road, eoast,and west of Fosberg Road (Tax Lot ltlta of Tax Map 2 lit 613A). Chairman Poster asked the Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Bearing none,he asked for the staff presentation. Mr, l'ishvale presented Bxhibit 19, to letter from Mr. Gvldo Zakovics to the Board. He discussed the difference between Mr. Zakovics' first letter(Exhibit 18) and the second letter, Chairman Foster asked Mr. Pishvaie to respond to some of the issues raised in Mr.Zakovics' letter, Mr.Pishvaie stated that most of the Issues,except for the one regarding the 300' notification list, were covered in the staff report. Mr. Pishvaie explained theCode requirements regarding notification, Mr.Pishvaie noted that the Code had a provision that if some names were accidently omitted from the list the hearing could still be heard because of the published notice and because a sign was posted on the site, Mr. Pishvaie discussed the proposal, He explained that a portion of the site had been annexed into the City, lie noted that the zone change would conic before the Planning Commission in, the near future, Mr. pishvaic discussed the topography and pointed out some of the significant features of the site, He mentioned that the lot sizes ranged from 5,200 to 10,400 sq, ft. Mr. Pishvaie explained the proposed,storm detention basin, Mr. Pishvate discussed the maximum density allowed, Ito noted that the applicant was only proposing 67,7% of the total allowable density. He indicated that the applicant had proposed to increase the front and rear yard setbacks from 10 feet to 15 feet, Mr. Pishvaie pointed out that there was an error on page 7 of the staff report, under the proposed side yard setbacks it should be 5' not iS', He pointed out that there was a request to further reduce the side yard setbacks on Lots 18 and 19 to 3 feet. Mr, Pishvaie stated that staff supported the 5 foot side yard setback; however, not the proposed 3 feet side yard setbacks for Lots 18 and 19, Mr, Rishvaie noted that there were no existing resources on the site that could qualify as open space under the priority list for the Park and Open Space Standard. Ile explained that the applicant was proposing to construct a landscaped detention basin at tite southwest corner Of the site. Mr. Pishvaie indicated that he would recommend that this area measuring 29,700 sq. ft, (,68 acres) be accepted as open space, however, this area accounts for only 20%of the required amount of open space land, Ile recommended that the remaining required 80%be t paid as a "fee—in-lieu or, p, } l l l3 2/5/90 Minutes Page 2 of 9 Mr, Pishvaie pointed out that staff was concerned about the potential impact of a 6 ft, fence proposed along the open space Tract "'A As shown on Exhibit 5, page 2, this tract is only 40 feet wide and a 6 ft, fence would create a tunnel affect. The open space tract would be a nuisance and a possible dumping area for the home owners. This would detract from the open space value of the tract. Mr, Pishvaie asked the Board to consider imposing a restriction on future fences to limit the height to only 3 ft, along the rear lot lines of Lots 76 through 80. Mr.Pishvaie discussed the proposed drainage system, He stated that staff was concerned about the proposed baffles, because these baffles could reduce the overall drainage capacity of the system. Mr. Pishvaie mentioned that Lot 5 could be impacted, lie noted that more information may be needed during the final design stage of the lot sizes. Mr Pishvaie referred the board to Exhibit 5, page 2, which illustrated''the proposed 10 ft right—of—way dedication along Lesser Road, He informed the Board that 20 ft, of the right— of—way had been vacated in 1984, He indicated that the applicant would need to dedicate 30 ft, of right—of—way instead of 10 ft, as shown on the plat, Additionally, he remarked that the applicant had proposed a varying right—of—way from 22.5 ft, to 5 ft. along Fosberg Road, Mr, Pishvaie specified that staff deems it necessary to require a 15 ft, minimum right-of—way along Fosberg Road. He noted that the reasons were outlined on page 14 of the staff report. Mr, Pishvaie discussed the traffic study submitted by the applicant, I le stated that staff was in agreement with the report. lie indicated that staff would also recommend conditions of agreement � 1 indicated 1 recommend approval as suggested by the nppliennt'rs traffic consuitant. Mr, Pishvaie concluded that the proposal complies with the applicable regulations and ordinances. Staff recommends approval of the project, subject to 28 conditions as listed on pages 17 through 21 of the staff report. AP PI kalif ,GitalhttU it .l, ,, iZAM q V.(),i!.Q ? ltisg. ? "gQ stated that he had reviewed the staff report and was in agreement with the recommended conditions of approval. He requested approval from the Board with the 28 conditions, Chairman Foster asked the Board tf't there were any questions for the applicant. The Board asked if any additional information had been provided to staff on the storm detention facility, Mr. Hobbs replied yes, Ile had met with staff and provided that information earlier, He stated that adequate detention would be provided, The Board asked Mr. Hobbs to respond to Mr. Zakovics' letter in regard to height and setbacks. Mr. Hobbs stated that all of the lots that abut the condominiums are rear lot lutes. He indicated thatbetween the two rear lot lines there would be adequate area so that no infringement occurred on Mr, Zakovics' solar rights, Mr, Hobbs mentioned that there would be tarp infringement on the views currently enjoyed by the condominium owners, The Board questioned the applicant about the design of�the project. Ms. $ybrowsky noted that the design was veryasymmetrical and uninteresting. Mr, Hobbs indicated that he had looked at alternative designs; however, because of the topography and the solar ordinance there were some constraints, The Board asked Mr, Hobbs about any other area that would qualify as Open space, Mr, Hobbs stated that he would rather have the lots and just pity the lea-in-lieu or the required s. 6v \ ,♦ He stated r 'ethere Y 'Y - Yig i"1 v r i ys the site. open spacer st�►te,dthat wart, no sr,grtrlrGtant I�atur4� on .� DIU) 2/5/90 Minutes Page 3 of 9 The Board inquired about qualifying open space lands. Mr. Pishvaie explained that the development ordinance for the Park and Open Space Standard contains a priority list of eight fi x items. Mr. Pishvaie discussed some significant ant sites in town to give the Board a comparable ., idea, The Board questioned staff about parking on Lesser Road, Fosberg Road tth,d Jefferson Parkway (collector streets). Mr. Pishvaie stated that he had not included a specific condition for "no parking"; however, he had included a condition that referred to Bxhibit 12(traffic study), stating that those conditions should be met. The Board suggested that there be a specific condition for"no parking", Mr, Pishvaie suggested that he would rather have the final decision from the Traffic Control Board, The Board asked staff about the soils report, specifically the "soft soils", Mr,Pishvaie pointed out that there was a City map identifying potential landslide hazard areas, The applicant submitted a brief letter or report explaining the situation; however, before final construction plans are approved the applicant is required to submit a detailed soils analysis. All of the recommendations found in the detailed report are then imposed upon the final design. QPinate i. LCeake eltcc,_5413 W.s61t10.c1 Ctl►ar'1,J n e,Osl,yego specified that he was concerned about the open space and traffic problems iin the area, lie disagreedwith the applicant's statement that people would prefer bigger lots than open space, l le was not in favor of trading open space for money, Mr. Ledbetter asked if the traffic report considered the impact of the new elementary school and the new park on Melrose, Ile questioned the volume of tral'fic measured, He also mentioned that he was concerned about the tree—lined swate along } 17osberg Road, it niL 1 ulty,41.9r0 i.1, of forme, Ilittlitti)oyego,submitted Exhibit 20, a memorandum and Exhibit 21, a letter to the Board, She spoke regarding the ambiguous meaning of public facilities I i.e., public facilities and services v.s. public facilities planned (sewer, transportation and water)l, She stated that this terminology should be clarified when it is mentioned, Ms. McNulty specified her greatest concern was regarding open space, She did not agree with the City's alternative to allow the developer to pay a "fee—in-lieu of" providing open space. She argued that staff had erred by determining that "the site presently does not contain areas which would qualify as open space pursuant to the priority list in DS 8,035(4)", Ms. McNulty pointed out that DS 8,035(4)contains areas which would quality as open space, particularly the natural meadows, She stated that as top priority open space, such as Distinctive Natural Areas, become more distinct the City should become more creative with the spacethat we have available, She felt that the City should not diminish natural meadows, because they rank as distinctive areas. She referred the Board to Statewide Planning Goal 5, which reinforces the need to preserve natural areas. Ms, McNulty implied that"natural" does not necessarily need to mean "pristine"or"original". She urged the Board to uphold DS 8.020 standards for approval, which require the applicant to provide open space at least equal to 20% of the gross land area. Ms, McNulty pointed out that tit least 3,44 acres should beprovided as open space. II Ms, McNulty was concerned about the wetland area. She indicated that permits would be necessary for this area. She commented on street names, stating that it was confusing when there were three streets with the same name. Ms. McNulty asked the Board to require that only one street be named "Brae" and the other two be named something else entirely. She encouraged walkways to the east through Kingsgttte if possible. She also indicated a desire to have a few walkways between lots for pedestrian movement. 0 ORB 2/5/90 Minutes Page 4 of o h Erin McAdpr' ," 4 ..swegQ,970g addressed the Growth '� � Management Policy Element indicating that the 1.991-1992 school year would be the opataltai; of the new Westlake Elementary School; however,lake Grove Elementary School would be ► ' ' closed at that same time Therefore, there still may be an enrollment problem with the elementary grade levels, Ms. Meadors referred to the soil's investigation and noted that V according to the Natural Rs ourcs Polley Element this investigat ion did not meet the requirements, The report did not identify whether or not there were weak foundation wails present, Ms.Meadors remarked that she agreed with Mrs. McNulty regarding the lack of' , „ neighborhood parks. She commented that Lake Oswego had the least amount of neighborhood parks only ,4 acres per 1,000 population in the northwest and urged the Board to require the applicant to provide the full 20% of open space as described in the development Z r expressed , a a a f a a � a+ i a standards, Ms. Meador expressed agreement with Mr. Ledbetter s testimony relating to info traffic, ed the Board She cthattt the the traffic ect will have an impact on Westlake ffc report neglectedto►�en Drive. tio Westlake Drive in its analysis of streets to be impacted by the proposal. Ms. Meadors referred,to the mat;ie report as contradictory in nature because it indicated that an appealing aspect of the, project was that it was close to Kruse Way and 1-5. She pointed out that this appealing aspect would cause traffic from the site to travel along Westlake Drive to Kruse'Way, She was concerned that ��,; this increased volume of'traffic would add to the problems already on Westlake Drive and /:,> discussed the inadequacy of safe pedestrian taciltires within the area, Ms, Meadors submitted • i,, Exhibit 22, a comparison table of traffic counts, She indicated that the City is currently at 60% build—out in this area and that traffic counts are going to exceed the Iltuke projections . *{' for the year 2,000 by 60%. „ ,t The Board questioned Ms. Meadors regarding her source of information relating to the closure of the Lake Grove Elementary School, She stated that Tony Smith was on the advisory board for Lake Grove Elementary School, Ms, Meadors informed the Board that talvy ''rA Ms S Yr a I i °• , �„i fk ,+ Smith had cotiariac.rtt4ti.that Fake Grove Elementary was going to close for remodeling tn# a ,,6+,;.>. the fall of 1992. fi Jtdiv Slllitit► `' t; ,I. .,,C 1 LU t g..0$W`I `7-tl F.,suited for the record that she was „, �� , in agreement with opposition testimony already presented. She indicated that she also discussed her concerns with Karen Sorenson and that she supported testimony about to be wi presented by Ms. Sorenson, KatnraLB.. Iafxi►tii .959.X'o•5►a„Q g I Ja ! 10117035,expressed concern relating to the lack of sufficient studies done on the wetland issues In Lake Oswego. She reminded the Board about previous proposals that were later discovered to have wetlands, Ms, Sorenson indicated that the City had not done an updated study on wetlands since 1976, Therefore, the information being relied upon for wetland determination was Inadequate. She informed the Board that Senate Bill No. 3 had recently been passed which discussed new criteria for wetlands, Ms. Sorenson went on to agree with Ms. Meadors regarding the soil's report. She was concerned that there were cove soils beneath the top soil and asked for a more in—depth soils report. Ms. Sorenson was also concerned about tree protection. She asked that the large trees be identified and protected, espeebtily the ones over 50 years old. MaJjati&I ? 1!* .64.1G.tg gattti a teL0SAY g ,...`), 0 stated that he was not opposed to the M y hethree 5concerns, t, 1 . a ti w x devc,loprirent, however, had tlar�d, brief The first concern was related to the.lttt,k of imagination used in laying out the project, Mr:Rockwell felt that the proposed layout was not consistent with the quality or other subdivisions in Lake Oswego, Secondly,he requested that 20% open space be provided for the 80 homes instead of allowing the developer to pay a "fee—in—lieu of . hintaily, he was concerned about thee trees not being identified, There are ' several evtree rat largeng reestttyri raltainlarto e on the property line and he would be hi favor or those ,�Yytr1 l"lil3 2/5/90 Nitrates Page 5 or ae�*14.4 Russ l rtssQrnhlle, 0784 Nl+Becke Road Aurora 9709,1 stated that he owned five acres south of the site, He was concerned about the layout and the density. 13,c1LttCtal Mr. Hobbs noted that he had only done a conceptual layout of the 15 acres south of the site, He indicated that the only reason a conceptual layout was designed was to show how the streets and services could connect in the; future, He pointed out that the conceptual layout was not even proposed or being considered at this time, Mr. Hobbs explained that the trees had been identified on the original maps that were submitted; however, the smaller versions, which were incorporated into the staff report, did not reflect this information, He stated that every tree was identified by species and size. Mr. Hobbs indicated that the purpose of theO. traffic study vas only to study the intersection of Lesser Road, l~osberg Road and Jefferson Parkway to determine if and when a connection was completed whether or not a turn lane might be necessary or ir a traffic signal might be necessary. Mr. Hobbs stated that the City had requested this information for the proposal, Mr. Hobbs mentioned that the soil conditions were the same as the soil conditions on Bay Creek Instates No, 1, 2, 3 and 4 lle indicated that the proposal met the applicable criteria and asked.the Board for approval with the conditions as recommended by stuff, The Board asked Mr, I'lobbs if there had been any wetlands discovered on the site. Mr, 1 Cobbs replied that there were no wetlands on the site. The Hoard asked how this determination was reached, Mr. Hobbs informed the Boatel that an engineer had walked the property and concluded that, there were no wetlands, The Board asked what the engineer was II looking tor, Mr,Hobbs indicated that the engineer had been looking for any type of vegetation that would determine a wetlands area. He stated that the main water flow off of rr `� Mt, Park comes into a large storm drainage system (part of Bay Creek iatates No,2) and runs ^ through several developments either in closed pipes or open, landscaped, and maintained swedes all the way to the Tualatin River 'l'he I3oard questioned Mr, Hobbs about using a botanical consultant and Mr. I=lobbs remerked that he did not have such a person assess the site; however, he indicated that City staf►'had examined the site. The Board acknowledge that they were surprised to learn that the lake()rove Ilementary School may be closing for one school year, in light of the controversy over school capacity bi recent months. The Board asked Mr. Hobbs if he had any evidence on this matter, Mr. Hobbs stated that he had no evidence or information of this matter. The Board questioned Mr, Hobbs about trading a few lots to meet the minimum requirements for open space. Mr. Hobbs indicated that he had dedicated several tracts of such open space around the metropolitan area in the past and these tracts remain unimproved and become eyesores for the cities, lie referred the Board to the clra Gage: tract and indicated that this would not be an eyesore because it would be landscaped. Ha stated that he would prefer to pay the fee—in—lieu or instead of dedicating the remaining 80%, The Board questioned Mr. Hobbs about the trees on the site. Mr. I lobbs stated that he was only proposing to cut the trees necessary to complete the necessary infrastructure, He informed the Board that it was his reputation and practice to do whatever is possible to save as many trees as possible, Mr. I lobby indicated that mature trees enhance the value of the property and therefore it was in his best interest to save as many trees as possible. The Board asked Mr. I lobbs about the street names. Mr. I lobbs remarked that he would be G� willing to change them, DRI3 2/5/90 Minutes Page 6 of 9 The Board asked Mr, Hobbs if he had approached the Mt, Park Home Owners' Association 1 about connecting walkways with Mt,Park. Mr. Hobbs replied that he.had not; however, there was some pedestrian access proposed along Iosberg and Jefferson Parkway that will connect with the Mt. Park system. Mr. Galante discussed some tilee issues raised by the a d, e stated that the Citywa s doing a good job of preserving open space as a whole; however, many sites such as a drainage channel, back yard buffer,stream corridor buffer zone, etc, were not considered on any inventory list. Therefore, the figures for any city-wide, statewide or nationwide open space Inventory are deceiving and not necessarily accurate. Mr. Galante addressed the issue of notification of adjacent owners. lie informed the Board that in the budget year 1987-1988 the city spent$5,120 on notification of public hearings, He also indicated that the next budget year was proposed to allow $11,900 just for the purpose of providing notification of these meetings. Mr, Galante noted that there were over 125 persons notified by mail about this heeding, Mr.Galante discussed the comment that there, is aiready over 60% of the projected traffic for the area. 1.°ie agreed this may be the case; however the site has only been developed 60%. He indicated that as development reaches its full potential the traffic actually decreases because there aremore streets and access alternatives into any particular development. The Board questioned staff about the potential for a wetland on the site, Mr. Pishvaie reiterated that staff had walked the.site and there was no vegetation,standing water or soil samples that would indicate a wetland, l le, pointed out that the storm water runoff from Mt, Park was running through drain pipes; therefore, causing less potential on this site for a wetland or standing water area, The Board asked Mr. Pishvaie to address exhibit 19, regarding the change in the stoned water runoff rates. Mr. Pishvaie noted that there was a substantial amount or runoff from Mt. Park and PCC Sylvania Campus, This water runs through a '18" pipe down into another system all the way to the Tualatin River, Mr. Pishvaie noted that the particular runoff in question has nothing to do with this site, The. water pattern does not travel through the.applicant's site Mr. Pishvaie reminded the Board that in 1988 during the review for Galen Park Estates the Mt. Park Home Owners' were adamantly opposed to a pathway connection to the Mt.Park common area. He stated that Mt. Park even proposed that a fence be constructed along its pathway. Mr.Hobbs discussed the trraffie stating that the most convenient route to 1-5 would be to travel to the.Plaines Road on-ramp to the north. He noted that once l°osberg and Lesser Roads were in proved that would probably be the preferred route and there would be less traffic on Westlake Drive. ,elute. t hi...u:1t The Board noted that the area was planned as high density; therefore, the traffic volume was planned. The Board agreed with the applicant that once the other developments were completed a lot of the traffic would be channeled northward to the Plaines Road exits. The Board pointed out that the applicant was only using 67% of the allowed density for the site and thereby reducing the potential impacts on the already heavy traffic volume. DRB 2/5/90 Minutes Page 7 of The Board found that additional open space land should be provided to satisfy the Park and Open Space Standard. The Board indicated a need for an area that may be just grass but would provide an opportunity for passive recreation or add cltitraeter to the development and the city The Board discussed the density or the project and noted that trs density increases the importance of the site design MIS to achieve a livable environment. The Board found that the site design could be better and more creative so that the residents could enjoy living there. Based upon testimony relating to the soils report,the Board decided that a sufficient soils report had been provided and therefore met the standard, The Board further noted that individual soils analysis would be required upon request for it building permit. The Board referred to testimony by staff and the applicant that there were no wetlands present on the site, The Board agreed that there:was a lack of evidence in the record indicating that there were infect wetlands on the site. The Board:found that the applicant had met the burden of proof relating to the wetlands. The Board agreed to continue the hearing in order to allow the applicant to comply with the Open Space Standard and toclarify the school issue. Mr. Greaves moved for the ntimtt3 `. nn0 to. niary.. t i99_040suitsista th e $ tisull ii sec ttlil uratto 1.9LOPZUPtiv . .ttt 10Y . Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Bloomer, Ms.Sybrowsky, Mr. °relive,s. Mr, Foster,Ms, Remy, Mr, Starr and Mr. Sum away all voting yes. V. GENERAL PLANNING; VI. (YET R flUlSJNESS —Findings. Conclusions and Order0 Mr, Greaves moved for atrtarovnd of D 9 U'li'D. 3.. `2: .f 2 -743, Findings,, Conclusions and Order. Ms.Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Grenves, Mr,Foster, Ms, Remy andMix Starr all voting yes, Ms.Sybrowsky and Mk.Blom abstained, Ms.Sybrowsky moved for approval of). 4r MVf 9) 74,7, Findings, Conclusions and Oder. Ms. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Greaves, Mr, Foster, Ms, Remy, Mr, Starr and Ma, Sybrowsky all voting yes, Mr. Bloomer abstained. Mr.Starr moved for approval of$113,9439416, Findings, Conclusions anti Order. Ms. Sytrrowsky seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Oreaves, Mr, Foster, Ms. Remy,Mr. Starr and Ms. Sybrowsky all voting yes. Mr, Bloomer abstained, Ms. Sybrowsky moved for approval of V.A 11. Via.--c)- 8 Pindin ;st Conclusions and Order. Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Greaves, Mr, roster, Ms. Remy, Mr, Starr and Ms. Sybrowsky all voting yes. Mr,Bloomer abstained. Vfi<, AI'PfOVAX. OF MINUTES Due to the lateness or the hour, the Board agreed to postpone the approval of the QdWbe ,, Diet it e Di€fl 2/5/90 Minutes Page 8 of 9 VIII. ADJOURNMENT _ .a There being no further business before the Development Review 13attrd, Chttirminr,7c)ster adjourned the meeting at 10;50 p,m Respectfully Submitted, &,e/t/b444_,(44/4 13arbztrtx Anderson Senior Secretary D1 :13 2/5/9C) Minutes Page 9 of 9 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO . .. , DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES January 15, 1990B L W L itia j ;A\I' r U I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of January IS, 1990 was Galled to order by Chairman.Greaves at 7;30 p,m, 1. ROLL CALL, Board members present were Mr.Miller,Mr. Starr,Ms.Remy,Mr,l co,ster,and Mr.Greaves. Ms. Sybrowsky arrived at'7.40, Also present were Robert Galante, Acting Planning Director; I•larid Pishvaie,Development Review Planner; Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney; and Barbara Anderson, Senior Secretary, Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Mr.Pishvaie noted that there were two items which would be discussed during the presentation of SD 39-89. t� V. PUBLIC IIEAIRINC 11112,1412,a request by Northland Homes,Inc. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 4-flex. The site is located at the northwest corner of Erasmus)west of Cervantes (Tax Lot 14 of Tax Map 2 IE 31D). I ,a request by Northlaaid Homes,Inc. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 4-plex. The site is located on the west side of Erasmus,west of Cervantes (Tax Lot 15 of Tax Map 2 1E 31D). Chairman Greaves noted for the audience that agenda items DR 23-&1 and DR 24=82 would be set over for another date. The applicant had requested a continuance in order to provide staff with additional information, Chairman Greaves asked staff if the applicant would be willing to waive the 120 requirement. Mr. Pishvaie noted that he would recornrnend a waiver to the applicant. Mr. Miller moved to eoNtinne DR 2 2-and 1112 910 Ma `` . Mr. Starr seconded and the motion passed with Mr,Miller,Mr.°waves, Ms.Sybrowsky,Ms. Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr.Foster all voting yes. SD 3e9494 a request by August F.Kalberer for approval to develop a 9-lot single family residential development. The site is located on Wall Street,east of Quail Court and west , of Robb Place (Tax Lots 2200 and 2300 of Tax Map 2 IE 9DC). Continued from t; December 4, 1989. DRB 1/15/90 Minutes Page I o17 Mr,Pishvaie briefed the Board on the previous hearing, held August 4, 1989. At that hearing ' the Board received testimony and deliberated, The major issue at that time was the buffer area along the west side of the property, The Board asked the applicant to redesign the buffer strip and come back with some alternative designs showing a greater buffer area, Mr, Pishvaie stated that on January 5, 1990 he prepared a staff report memorandum which contained three site plans, The applicant submitted two new designs, Both designs show that the buffer area along the west side has been increased from a minimum of 5 feet to a minimum of 10 feet, Mr Pishvaie noted that he had received two petitions from neighbors in the area, The first was in opposition to the extension of Wall Street, The second was in support of that extension, Mr, Pishvaie pointed out that the hearing had been closed on this issue, In order for these two petitions to be included into the record the Board would need to reopen the record, Chairman Greaves indicated that he was not inclined to allow the new evidence into the record. The Board agreed not to reopen the record to consider the extension of Wall Street, Chairman Greaves asked staff if Exhibit 14 was preferred over Exhibit 15, Mr, Pishvaie stated that staff was in favor of Exhibit 14, Start did not feel there was a need for a full cuidesac, this strip would only serve four to five lots, Chairman Greaves announced to the audience that only testimony regarding the reconfiguration of Bradley Court would be allowed into the record, 1 le then asked the applicant to make his presentation. Applicant atessalLopplaeglake Cons.ttit.iuits. ine,,speaking on behalf of Mr Kalberer suited that he too was in favor of Alternative A (Exhibit 14 ), as mentioned by staff. l'his alternative allows a cuidesac with the minimum amount of asphalt,causing less runoff. Mr, Topp pointed out that d te theconservation easement had been removed and the entrance would have a stop sign as suggested by Board. Chairman Graves recalled that during the previous rebuttal by the applicant, it was indicated that the applicant did not wish to have a fence placed along the rear of the yards adjacent to Bradley Court, Mr.Topp indicated that was correct, Mr.'lbpp pointed out that it would be a burden to construct a fence along that entire area in addition to increasing the buffer area to 10 feet, He suggested that by increasing the buffer from 5 feet to 10 feet should be considered as a trade off for the fence along the rear yards, Chairman Groves questioned the applicant about the landscaping of the buffered area, Mr, Topp stated that basically the landscaping would be worked out with the City in order to minimize the blockage of views, Onannents, Kett Imse,17,12(1,SYERolikelamlarktOsvvtgo stated that he was in favor of Exhibit 14 a t, well, However, he preferred to have a 15 foot buffer instead of a 10 foot buffer, Mr. Imse was also concerned about the maintenance of the buffer strip. Chairman Greaves suggested that the Board could impose a condition requiring the applicant to work with staff to come up enforce low maintenance maintenance ntaground tat covebuffr, area. Imse expressed concern about the City's ability to DRB 1/15/90 Minutes Page 2 of 7 aelmitel Mr, Topp pointed out that there were two points in the buffered area that were only 10 feet wide, He indicated that the rest of the buffered urea was a minimum of 15 feet,in fact several points were as wide as 18 feet. Chairman Gretwes asked the applicant about the possibility of moving the whole buffered area over another few feet to the east, Mr.Topp indicated that the northern portion could be moved a few feet to the east; however, the southern portion needs to be where it is in order to maintain An appropriate turning radius for the culdcsac and meet the 10,(XX)sq, ft, minimum lot size. The Board questioned the applicant about construction of a fence on Lot 2, Mr,Topp implied that the applicant would be willing to work with the adjacent owner on the cost and design of the fence, Chairman Greaves clarified that it would be the Board's intent to have a simple chain—link fence or wood fence and in the event that the applicant and the owner of Lot could not work together, staff would work to mediate the problem. fleltheratio, Based upon their evaluation of the revised site plans, Alternates "A" (Exhibit 14)and "13„ (Exhibit 15), the Board found that Alternate "A„ was a substantial improvement over the original proposal, since it better complies with the landscaping standard, This design provides additional landscape buffering (a aniniamrm of 10 feet) for the residences along the west property line. The Boaard found that a fence was necessary along Lot 2, Block 1 of Quail Ridge in order to mitigate any adverse impact by Bradley Court on that lot, The applicant was directed to work A � with the affected property owners regarding the design and cost of any future; fences. The Board found that the:Wall Street extension through this project was necessary to improve the overall traffic circulation system in the neighborhood, The Board also directed staff to prepare a report for the Traffic Control Board explaining the Board's recommendation and support for a stop sign at the intersection of Bradley Court and Wall Street, The proposed landscape easements on Lots 3,4, h and 9 were withdrawn by the applicant, Exhibit 14, The Board deleted conditions A.3 and A,4, Mr. Miller moved for approval of SD 39-49 as recommended by staff and in accordance with the Board deliberation,, Ms. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. tvliller, Ms, Sybrowsky, Ms,Remy,Mr, Staarr,Mr.Poster and Mr,Greaves all voting yes, f , .,4= 111.,., .1.4 ,a request by Ned Nelson Architect. The applicant is requesting approval to modify the roof materials, increase the fence height,provide screening for mechanical.equipment and revise the building facade. The site is located east of State Street,north of Foothills Road (Tax Lots 100tl,1S0 and 1700 of Tax Map 2 i.E/CB), Mr. Pishvaie discussed the prior approval for the public storage facility. He indicated that the structure was completely built. The applicant is operating on a ternportrry occupancy basis, Then:am four issues before the Board tonight 1)the design of the building,as it relates to f: the wall treatment for Buildings A and B. When this project was approved,Buildings A and B were to have formed horizontal architectural reveals in the wall between the color bands, ORB 1/15/90 Minutes Page 3 of 7 When the project was built those reveals were not provided as approved by the Board, 2)the original proposal was approved with gravel or pebble roofing material, The project was built ti Ask with a cap sheet roofing material; 3) the third issue has to do with screening for mechanical equipment on the roof of lvailding A; and 4) the last issue has to do with the fence around the project, The Board approved a 6' high fence. Subsequent to the approval, barbed—wire was , installed on top of the 6' fence, thereby increasing the height to 7-8' Mr, Pishvaie indicated that staff was concerned about visual impacts, He re nested that the Board direct the applicant to provide some architectural solutions to deal with the issues raised, Staffs recommendation was for denial unless the applicant provides some alternative solutions, However, staff would recommend approval for the mechanical screening with one condition, applicant Ned Nvls. ta,.3 Lake Bellevue Drive,Suite 200,Bellevue Reslu giot4 J84OS,project architect. Discussed the history on the project, He stated that the working drawings were prepared for the site and sent through the City's plan check system, These issues were not pick( a up during the plan check stage, hence, the finished building. Mr, Nelson stated that there was a mineral cap sheet material on the roof surface which has a granular surface. He noted this surface is not on the scale of a pebble, however, it is a high quality mineral granular surface roof, He pointed out that the roofing material wasspecified on the working drawings and the applicant did receive plan cheek approval, Mr. Nelson. implied that the visual impact from State Street is minimal, The distance from the neighborhood is 3(X) to 4(H)feet from the buildings; therefore, the scale of the pebbles or granular surface would not be distinguishable. Mr Nelson agreed that the patching issue was `v a valid point. Mr. Nelson discussed the "seeding"or"salting"technique used to lay the roof, y,°r` ' He indicated that if there was any patching done the same process would be used; therefore it would be difficult to detect where the repair occurred, Mr, Nelson commented on the building facade. He stated that the existing details actually help reduce the scale of these building, and that any accent break would make the buildings more dominant, Mr.Nelson discussed the proposed mechanical screening for the heat pumps on Building "A", He stated that the applicant wished to leave the pump where it was and paint it to match the building, He indicated that the applicant would be willing to place some screening mound the pump if desired by the Board. Mr. Nelson pointed out that since the pump was so small it would probably be best to just paint it and leave it alone. Mr,Nelson addressed the fence issue. He implied that:all of the fence material was 6 feet high. He noted that the barbed—wire material was approximately 10 inches high above the cyclone fence material, Mr, Nelson referred the Board to Exhibit 4, He indicated that the fence was presented to staff in this manner and not rejected. Mr, Nelson noted that there was barbed-wire on the sewage treatment plant, Deliberatien II Based on testimony received from the applicant, the Board found that: — The request to maintain the existing building facade complied with the Building Design Standard, provided; DRB 1/1 a/90 Minutes , Page 4 of 7 a. That additional large scale landscaping along Building "A"frontage was added to bring the scale of the building down, and b; Thgt the doors and escape stairways were painted to match the adjacent,existing color bands. The Board found that the existing "mineral granular"cap sheet roofing was acceptable. Based an Exhibit$, the Board found that gravel surface would not be visible from a,distance of 300 to 400 feet: Regarding the maintenance of the roof,the Board found that any future patching should be treated to match the overall roof color. The Board found he proposed mechanical screening for the condenser on Building"iA" to be acceptable. The Board also found that to help screen the elevator shaft on Building "A",it should be painted to match the top color baud on that building. The Board found that the barbed—wire was not necessary,for security reasons, Since the site • is protected by steep grades on all.sides,there is no additional need for security above the 6' chain—link fence. The Board found that the applicant had violated the terms of their original approval and that the proposed modifications were,necessary to mitigate for the changed appearance and to insure compliance with City Standards, Mr. Foster moved for approval of 1)13„4:8:11Mo,d,11421 as recommended by staff and in accordance with the deliberations of the Board. Mr. Miller seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Miller, Ms, Sybrowsky, Ms, Remy, Mr. Starr,Mr,Foster and Mr.Greaves fi all voting yes. YAi 3 -69(0-;c1,a request by Larry A.Mentrum. The applicant is seeking approval for three variances as follows. a) A 5 foot Class 2 variance to the S foot required side yard in an R-7.5 residential zone [LOC 48.215(1)1, b) A Class 2 variance to the restrictions placed on nonconforming structures,which do not allow for any variance in their nonconformity[LOC 48.700(2)(b)],and c) A 7 55% Class 2 variance to exceed the 3,5% maximum lot coverage allowed for interior lots in an R-7.$zone. The current dwelling and deck maintains 40.8% coverage; the proposed addition would add 1.75% coverage to the existing. All variances are requested to allow enlargement of a kitchen within an existing dwelling. The;site is located at 3406 S M, Lakeview Blvd.,otherwise described as Tax Lot 6400 of Tax Map 2 IC 8DB, Chairman Creaves asked if any Board members had any conflicts of interest or any ex parts: contacts. Hearing none, he asked for a brief staff report. Michael Wheeler summarized the issues. He explained the requested variances. Mr. Wheeler discussed the variance criteria and stated that staff recommends approval of the proposed variances. Alugiani 'ry,Mtittrun ti. ? 1Miard 004,1'tkrr. itti discussed the proposal, lie explained that concrete stairs were currently located in the area proposed for the expansion, Mr. Mentrum described the expansion stated that these stairs would be left intact and ORB 1/1$/90 Minutes Page 5 of 7 enclosed in a storage area, The door to that storage area would be on the hack side of the house. There would not be any new stairway constructed on the exterior of the house, 0 1' i G, r, entru confirmedExhibit" Mr.Foster noted a dascmpancy in Exhibits is 5 and M M mthat .i was incorrect. He pointed out that the existing nook was actually out 5 feet farther beeause of a bay window, limy I3rambiIl . :L,nke Qswego,97035 stated that the addition was proposed in4order to update the kitchen and to provide more privacy from the neighbors. The neighbors view should not be affected at all, D.libault The Beard found that a hardship exists due to the small size of the existing 144 sq. ft, kitchen in the existing dwelling. The Board further determined that a hardship exists due to the 45- 50% slope of the she, and the impracticality of moving the kitchen to another part of the dwelling based upon the existing floor plan. The Board found that no injury to the neighborhood would result front the proposal as demonstrated by eight letters of support for neighboring property owners, The Board found that the proposal is the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the site comparable to other homes in the neighborhood, This was supported by an inventory of similar properties and an analysis of reasonable use (Exhibit 4). Additionally, the Board determined that the proposed addition would be no closer to the side property line than the existing dwelling and will avoid areas of steep slope present on the site. . 'y Mr. Starr moved for approval of, ►. 7 .` ( . Ms. Sybrowsky.seconded the motion v* and it passed with Mr4 Miller, Ms, Sybrowsky, Ms, Remy, Mr. Starr, Mr, Foster and Mrs Greaves all voting yes4 VI. OTHER BUSINESS-Findings,Conclusions and Order The Board found discrepancies in the Findings, Conclusions and Order for 141,1142111,12 1.3491,YARX.42 and asked staff to correct tllcnt and return for a final vote at the next meeting, Ms.Remy moved for approval of the Findings,Conclusions and Order for 1 , 74$. Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Miller,Ms, Sybrowsky, Ms. Remy, Mr. Starr, Mr.Foster and Mr.Greaves all voting yes, VII. GENERAL PLANNING Mr.Miller moved to nominated Mr.Foster as the new Chair for the Development Review 13oatd. Ms. Remy seconded and the motion passed with Mr, Miller,Ms, Sybrowsky,Ms Remy,Mr. Starr, Mr.Foster and Mr. Greaves, Ms.Remy moved to nominate Mr.Greaves as Vice-Chair. Mr. Miller pointed out that Mr. Greaves would do an excellent job as vice-chair; however, he felt it was appropriate to have involvement from a member who would be continuing with the Development Review Board in the upcoming years. 4110 DR13 1/15/90 Minutes Page 6 of 7 r Mr,.Miller moved to nominate Ms, Remy as Vice—Chair. Mr. Starr seconded the motion t�rld it passed with Mr. Miller,Ms,Sybrowsky,Ms.Remy,Mr.Starr,Mr.Poster and Mr.Starr ail r,, . voting yes, VIIX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Board, Chairman poster • adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Barbara Anderson Senior Secretary 4/20/91 tua 410 DRB 1/1.5/90 Minutes Page 7 of 7 , '•11,'I't1.1 *I tis;. ... st, A ..., ri, ..,..r,,, ti, . ,., 1 1 , CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DPVLLnPMCN7, REVIEW B �S BOARD MINUTES ANUARY 3, 1990 I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of January 3 , 1990 was called to order by Chairman Greavea at 730 p.m IX. ROLL, CALL I 1 Board members present were Mr . Miller, Ms Sybrowsky, Mrs. Greaves, Mr . Starr , Mr, Foster and Ms. Remy. Also present were Robert Galante, Acting Planning Director; Cindy Phillips, Assistant City Attorney; and Aarbara Anderson, Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ` None. IV. PETIT DONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Mr, Galante stated that there were two letters concerning PD 16-89. The first was from. the applicant, who petitioned the Board to reopen the hearing. Mr. Galante said the Soard had approved the project, but did not approve a street that provided access to some lots on the east end of the development. The applicant stated that they can provide additional information to illustrate that a 20 or 24 foot drive could be constructed and that they could provide better evidence. Included with the letter were; a property line survey, cross sections, profiles, cut 4nd fill plans, and a composite color xerox illustrating the character of the rock retaining wall. Staff recommended that the Board look at tOC 49. 610 which has been used before to open public hearings where there has been new evidence submitted. The second letter was from George Ronning, an adjacent neighbor~ , requesting the Board to reopen the hearing specifically to reconsider a sidewalk DRt3 Minutes 1/3/90 Page 1 of 9 extension. Mr. Galante stated that Mr. Ronning w4 present and instead of reading the entire letter? Mr Ronning could provide any additional details and answer any questions the Board may have. Chairman Greaves told Mr. Ronning he would entertain a one minute statement from him, not testimony if he wanted to add anything before the Board considered reopening on this issue. George Ronning, 2003 SW Ridgewood Lane, Lake Oswe o x discussed the issue of the sidewalk extenion on h property. He stated that there was never a mention in the testimony, in any plans presented or the staff report that the sidewalk would be extended a"leng his property. The neighborhood testimony was against sidewalks in the development. Chairman Greaves opened for, Board deliberation the general issue of reopening PH 18-89. He stated that he believed the applicant should be entitled to make a presentation to the Board since they had raised a number, cf questions that weren' t answered, and Lake Oswego Code 49. 610 does specifically state in paragraph (k) that " . . if the Board imposes any new conditions or modifications that weren' t presented in the staff report or raised in the public hearing that an opportunity should be pp y presented to persons to comment on that, . " , The Board questioned staff about Mr. Miller ' s role in the matter after his term expired. The Board felt it may be necessary for Mr. Miller to provide input on this hearing item. Mr. Galante replied that Mr. Miller, as a private citizen, could provide information to staff. This information could be passed on to the Board in the form of a staff report. Any ex-parte contact would not be proper. Art Piculell, Homesite Development, 3236 SW Kelly St. , Portland, stated that they brought this proposal back because they were not prepared on some specific technical issues due to the amount of time spent on some off-site issues. Ms. Remy moved to reopen the hearing on Lail 18-89 on the private access and the sidewalk issues and direct staff to put out the appropriate notice. The motion was seconded by Mr. Foster and passed with Mr. Miller, Ms. Remy, Mr. Starr, Mr . Foster and Mr. Greaves all voting yes. Ms. Sybrowsky abstained. oRa Minutes 1/3/90 Page 2 of 9 The Chairman advised Mr. Ronning and Mr . piculell that they would receive notice of the hearing and that the applicant would be allowed to testify first and then other testimony would be heard on the road issue. He suggested that at that time Mr. Ronning should get up and make his presentation on the sidewalk and that Would allow the applicant to rebut any other evidence that came in at that time, V. PUBLIC BEARINGS OR 22-89, a request by Pletcher Farr Ayotte, PC the ap i1icant is requesting approval of a 10,000 square foot (approximately) office/warehouse for a construction company, The site is located at 5800 .ean Road (Tax Lot 2900 of Tax Map 2 lE I8BD) Chairman Greaves asked if there were any conflicts of interest or any ex parte contact to report. After receiving no response he went on to state that the applicant was a client of his law firm. Mr , Greaves stated that he had nothing to do with this specific request and had not discussed it with the applicant and therefore did not believe it would affect his participation Mr. Galante stated that staff was recommending approval with the following conditions: 1 A final development schedule be submitted for the review and approval of staff, 2. The applicant provide metal material samples of the panel and awning for review and approval of the staff , 3. That the location and screening of roof mounted mechanical equipment be illustrated in plans. 4 . Building mounted and site Lighting specifications and photometrics be provided for the review and approval of staff. 5 The landscape plan be modified to illustrate on additional street tree. Ground cover planted in shrub beds and additional screening of fence and wall construction area to screen the staging area along the east property line and submitted for final review and approval of staff. L j did + bRt3 Minutes 1/3/90 Page 3 of 9 ` 6. A final drainage plan illustrating a drainage system for the north portion of the parking area and a pollution control catch basin be provided. The final plan shall illustrate storm water detention in a natural basin or pond unless it is not feasible 7. The property owner shall sign a nonremonatrance agreement for future improvements of Jean Road 8. The applicant shall comply with the City pathway process and pay the required deposit for the construction of the pathway along Jean Road. 9. An erosion control plan shall be provided for the review, and approval of staff . 10 . Final, plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of the staff} Applicant; David Wark,, Fletcher Parr Ayotte, 115 NW First Aver Portland speaking eaking for the a licant, stated that the . „�' only thing he would like to clear up was the point Mr. Greavee brought up about the north property line, the fence versus landscaping . What they proposed was a 10 foot landscape buffer with a chain link fence. The adjacent neighbor also has a landscape buffer which adds up to a 15 to 20 foot landscape buffer overall . He stated that what they would like to do is increase the landscaping and keep the chain link fence, but put a green screen on the fence (like you see on tennis courts) . He said that to put a concrete wall up, like on the court yard, would be very expensive and at more than eight dollars a foot it adds up to eight to ten thousand dollars for a fence. He went on to say that with the green screen on the fence and the 10 foot landscape buffer the neighbor should not be able to see any of the construction vehicles and temporary field offices on their property The Board asked if the metal sample given to them was to be painted and if its on the upper story of the office. Mr . Wark replied that the metal would not be painted and it was to be on the upper story with a canopy that stretches the entire west side of the building. He also stated that the galvalume finish is a dull grey finish on the metal siding; 1)RB Minutes 1/3/90 Page 4 of 9 Mr. Foster expressed some concern about the large fir tree in the back of the property that Was close to where some grading will be done and asked if the applicant would get an arborist to look at it and propose some protective measures. Mr. Wark replied that this was no problem, Proponents Michael Elton 17311 SW Canyon Drive, Lake Oawe, oc proceeded to draw a diagram en this Board to show the proposed building and landscaping. Mr . 011ton went on to show the Board what his interpretation of the plans were and stated that he agreed with the project if he was in fact correct in this interpretation. The Board asked for clarification of the fencing proposed. The applicant replied that it was a standard galvanized chain-link fence with a green mesh on the inside of the fence for screening. They did not consider using redwood slats in the fence. because staff asked them to be more in keeping with the building and they were to increase the landscaping. The Board asked the applicant to ,increase the number of photinia and put them in a double row staggered about three feet apart. Mr. Galante stated that he would like to address some of the items that were raised . He said that the staff recommendations on fencing and landscaping were to adhere to the zoning of the area which is commercial in a landscaped setting. They recommended a chain link fence but did not recommend the use of a green mesh for more opaqueness but recommended increasing the landscaping. Mr. Galante stated that there was some flexibility for planting in this buffer and the Code does allow time for growth of the plants and he read the minimum standards stated in the Coder The Board asked about the rear area that was just going to be left open. They asked what was going to be done with it. Mr , Galante said it was going to be a low use area and they did ask them to provide a drainage system in that area and felt gravel was adequate. He said he also wanted to bring to the Hoards attention the issue of what was the maximum number of employees who '� .. DRt3 Minutes 1/3/90 Page' 5 of 9 will be using the parking area to make sure they had »� ,, adequate parking. The applicant replied that they had seven employees now and there were nineteen spaces provided to allow for growth and they had in fact exceeded the number of spaces required for the size of office they had, Mr . tlton stated that the double row of photinia would be acceptable to him and instead of the mesh screening a metal or vinyl slat properly color coded 1 with the rest of the building in the fence. Fe said I he would also like to see the balance of the yard paved. Rick Grigsby, 8114 SW Nimbus Ave. , Beaverton, stated gist he wanted to point out the rear area was not intended to be paved because it would not be in use. Its simply for future growth and they do anticipate paving it in the future. There would be subsystem drainage installed. Deliberation The Board found that special measures may be necessary to protect a fir tree that existed near the middle of the east property line. The Board agreed 1 that an arborist should review the development conditions around the tree and recommend measures to insure the tree's best chance of survival. The Board found that screening could be improved along the east property line by adding a double row of photinia and about three fir trees. This landscaping in addition to the chain-;Link fence would provide. adequate screening The applicant testified that seven employees existed at present and that one additional employee would be added for the warehouse. The board found that the 19 parking spaces provided would meet the City parking Standard and allow for significant expansion. Mr. roster moved for approval of DR 22-89 with the following conditions: 1. 1 final development schedule shall be submitted , for the review and approval of staff. 2. Metal material samples of the panel and awning shall be provided ,for the review and approval of staff. ORB MinaLes 1/3/90 Page 6 of 9 0 3. The location and screening of roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be illustrated in plans. 4. Building-mounted and site lighting specifications and photometrics shall be Provided for the review and approval of staff. 5. The landscape plan shall be modified to illustrate one additional street tree (Red Oak) , ground cover planted in shrub beds. The final plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of staff. 6. A final drainage plan illustrating a drainage system for the north portion of the parking/staging area and a pollution control catch basin shall be provided. The final plan shall illustrate storm water detention in a natural basin or pond unless it is not feasible The final plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of staff. 7. The property owner shall sign a nonremonsttrance agreement for the future improvement of Jean , Road. 8. The applicant shall comply with the City pathway process and pay the required deposit for the construction of a pathway along Jean Road. 9. An Erosion Control Plan shall be provided for the review and approval of staff. 10. The applicant shall retain en arborist to i • nspect the large fir tree on the east property line and to recommend measures to insure the tree's best chance of survival The arborist shall submit the proposed measures for the review and approval of staff. 11. Screening along the east property line shall be increased by providing a staggered double row of photinia plus three fir trees. Mr. Miller seconded and it passed with Mr. Miller, Ms-, Sybrowsky, Ms. Remy, Mr. Starr, Mr . E'oster and Mr. Greaves all voting yes. 41) DRB Minutes 1/3/90 pays, 7 of 9' . . VI. GENERAL PLANNING `'' Mr . Galante discussed the work being done on the Waluga reservoir project. He told the Board there would be a public hearing to inform the public of the work to be done and to hear any concerns the neighborhood may have about additional screening around the reservoir. VII. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order Mr. Galante explained to the Board what the changes were on the findings for Dominion Development. Chairman Greaves asked if there were any revisions or comments on the changes. He then asked for staff to delineate the subpoints on page 6, the fourth item, and say who it was that testified, They asked that it be made to read that the school district superintendent testified. Mr. Miller moved for approval of DR 10-89/t?0 14-89- 726, Findings, Conclusions and Order with the modificatiCn on page 6 line 16 to change the word district to read superintendent (first vote,,. Mr. Starr seconded and it passed with Mr . MiJ :e' r , Ms. Sybrowsky, Ms. Remy, Mr. Starr, Mr . Foster voting � ^;�, yes. Mr. Greaves abstained. Ms. Sybrowsky moved for approval. of DR 21-89-734► Findings Conclusions and Order (first vote . Ms. Remy seconded and it passed with Ms. Sybrowsky, Ms Remy, Mr. Starr, Mr. Greaves voting yes. Mr . Miller and Mr . Foster abstained. Mr . Greaves noted changes for VAR 33-89 (a-41 on page 2 line 20 there was a contraction can' t that should be changed to cannot. Item number 4 on lines 23 and 24 of page 2 should be revise to read as follows; "The Board found that the request would not be injurious to the neighborhood. Evidence in support was submitted in the record. No contrary evidence was submitted. " And finally at the bottom of the page put as ordered by the Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego that VAR 33-89(a-d) is approved. Mr. Miller moved for approval of VAR 33-89(a-d) , Findings, Conclusions and Order as amended ,(first 0 ORB Minutes 1/3/90 Page 8 of d V V it 4 �jf�I IP, vote) . Ms. Remy seconded and it passed with Ms. ._,, Sybrowsky, Ms. Remy, Mr. Starr, Mr . Greaves voting „ ;,i-.':. yes. Mr. Miller and Mr. Foster abstained. ' ' .R.'i i Mr. Greaves asked if there were any changes to VAR ' '' , • 38-87(arc,d) [Mod. 10-891/VAR 40--89. He then said on T r"4 • Page 4 order B. 4 to change the word on the second •, ,•.x." line from destruct to impair . ',L,,.. ' Ms. Remy moved for approval of VAR 38-87(a#t.ctd) {Mod. '' 10-091/VAR 40-89 as amended (first votes. Mr'. Starr , .;, seconded and it passed with Ms. Sybrowsky, Ms. Remy, ',' Mr . Star and Mr . Greaves voting yes, Mr . Miller and : ' Mr . Foster abstained, '..}t Mr . Greaves asked the Board to think about electing , «Ρt officers at the next meeting. F r,, �i it n V X X I. Al0JOURNMLNT ,. There being no further business before the Development Review Board, the meeting adjourned at ' ',' ;! 9 3 0 p.m. ` ,1',"1 . Respecteully, • Y,' 6 , .,. . ., ,,,.. ,„„ i Barbara Anderson 4, },, Secretary "k .4.is .,y • t °0,, , F,f DRB Minutes 3/3/90 , ,..,. Page 90C9 . # 1.